IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18080 of 2009 1. MANJU DEVI W/O SHRI UPENDRA PRASAD CHAIRMAN , ZILA PARISHAD, EAST CHAMPARAN , R/O VILL MISHRAULIA, P.S.CHAIRAIYA, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR , AT PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR , DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR AT PATNA 5. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION AT MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM -COORDINATOR DISTRICT PROGRAMME EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 7. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR PANDEY , THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 8. THE DISTRICT ENGINEER ZILA PARISHAD , EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI ----------- 02. 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be the Chairman of the Zila Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran. She is aggrieved by the communication dated 8.10.2009 made by the Deputy Development-Cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad, informing her that insofar as the schemes and execution thereof under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme are concerned, the District Magistrate- Cum-District Programme Co-coordinator, was the competent authority to decide on issues and that she should not correspond with the Deputy Development- Cum-Chief Executive Officer. 2 The controversy in the present case appears to be relating to the scope and extent for exercise of powers in a democracy at the grass root level by elected functionaries to be balanced with the regulatory power of the State in the particular nature of the present scheme funded by the Central Government and by the State Government. Therefore the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 shall have to be read subservient to the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in view of Section 28 of the latter Act, keeping in mind the distinction under the former Act based on its own revenues. Where the Revenues for execution of the scheme came from the Central Government and State Government, surely the person who provides the Revenue retains the power for regulatory control in accordance with law. If a priority list of works has been prepared by the Zila Parishad and if the priority serial is varied and any scheme desired by the Zila parishad is not approved by the funding authority, the petitioner has adequate remedy before the State Government under Section 19 of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. If so advised, the petitioner may represent before the State Government which shall be decided in accordance with law by a reasoned and 3 speaking order. Since the matter relates to working of grass roots democracy and developmental schemes by generating employment, the Court expects that the State Government shall dispose off the objections, if any, at the earliest so that in the tussle developmental schemes are not hampered. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)