1 KANWRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4168/09) Dated:- 25.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.Sunil Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Bissa, Additional Government Counsel. Mr. Sukesh Bhati, for the applicant Smt. Tibbu. 1. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 31.3.09 passed by the District Collector, Barmer , whereby the work of Adarsh Gaon Jaisindhar Station under the Border Area Development Programme, earlier entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, Jaisindhar has been taken away and has been entrusted to a committee constituted by the District Collector, Barmer. 2. The Department of Home, Government of India, introduced the Border Area Development Programme (“BADP”) with the twin objectives of balanced development of sensitive Border areas in the western regions through adequate provisions of infrastructure facilities and promotion of a sense of security amongst the local population. Under the BADP while sanctioning the approved specific projects, the Department of Home conveyed the administrative and financial sanction of budget of Rs.242 crores, which includes sanction of Rs.242 lacs for 14 works at village Jaisindhar Station. The Gram Panchayat, Jaisindhar was appointed as executing agency for the works 2 sanctioned. However, it was noticed that the Gram Panchayat has not taken any interest in completion of the work expeditiously and has failed to complete the same even after lapse of 15 months, whereas, the duration of the project was stipulated to be 12 months and 7 works under project were not even started. It was further noticed that the executing agency had submitted the utilization certificate of the entire amount sanctioned for the projects, but majority of the projects were found to be incomplete in many respect. Thus, while taking action upon the communication dated 23.1.09, sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Border Management, BADP Section, to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, a decision was taken to change the executing agency and accordingly, a committee was constituted by the District Collector, Barmer to execute the works under sanctioned specific projects expeditiously. That apart, a technical committee was also constituted to submit the report regarding the work executed and the material used. Hence, this petition at the instance of the petitioner, who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jaisindhar. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the works under the sanctioned specific projects having been entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, Jaisindhar for execution , the District Collector had no jurisdiction to create yet another 3 executing agency by constituting a committee. The learned counsel submitted that according to the scheme the execution of the works is required to be entrusted to the local authority therefore, it was not open for the District Collector to create an executing agency not envisaged under the scheme. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of provisions of Section 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ( “Act of 1994”), any contribution or grants made by the Central or the State Government forms part of the fund of the panchayat, therefore, no other body can be permitted to use this fund entrusted to the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that financial sanction having been granted and the work having been entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, Jaisindhar, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to inter meddle in the matter and thus the impugned action is ex facie violative of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 1994. 4. Admittedly, the works in question under the Border Area Development Programme sanctioned by the Department of Home, Government of India were entrusted to the Gram Panchayat, Jainsindhar, inasmuch as, it is one of the executing agency specified under clause (vii) of the scheme. However, the implementation of the work and scheme undertaken under BADP is to be monitored by the State Government. It is the responsibility of the State Government to carry out the 4 inspection from time to time so as to ensure quality and completion of the works. The State Government having appointed the Gram Panchayat, Jainsindhar as an executing agency, is not divested of its authority to execute the work on its own. In considered opinion of this court, when the Gram Panchayat, Jaisindhar had failed to execute the works within stipulated period and projects were being unnecessary delayed, the District Collector has committed no error in constituting a committee in conformity with the scheme to expedite the execution of the work and check the quality thereof. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that while entrusting the execution of the works under the project as aforesaid, any contribution or grant has been extended by the Central Government to the Gram Panchayat, Jainsindhar. The Gram Panchayat, Jaisindhar appointed as an executing agency for work sanctioned under the project has no vested right to continue with the project. 5. The amount sanctioned by Government of India for the project also does not form part of the fund of the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 1994 are simply not attracted in the matter. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this court, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.