1 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.7658/2007 Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: September 02, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr. P.C. Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Madhav Mitra, Mr. S.S. Sharma, Govt.Counsel for the respondents. *** Heard Dr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Madhav Mitra learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. S.S. Sharma learned counsel for the State. This PIL application has been filed by the petitioner for necessary direction to the State Government to examine the matter pertaining to allotment of suitable plots/sites for rehabilitation of weaker sections of the society, especially for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that large scale bunglings were made by the authorities while allotting the plots/suitable sites in violation of the conditions of allotment. It is also submitted that needy persons were not given plots rather the same were distributed/allotted to the interested persons. In this connection, reference was made to the report submitted by the Panchayat Prasar Adhikari on the basis of public complaints. At the outset, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 about maintainability of this PIL application at the behest of the writ petitioner by saying that the writ petitioner was one of the applicants and since a piece of land was not allotted to him on account of non- deposit of the premium amount, he is raising grievances. 2 Per se it appears from Annexure-6, report submitted by the Panchayat Prasar Adhikari, that there were violations of the conditions of settlement but it is not known to the Court as to the ultimate decision taken by the authorities upon the report submitted by the Panchayat Prasar Adhikari pointing out certain irregularities. The writ petitioner even though, may not be aggrieved by the decision taken by the authorities, has come up before this Court to point out certain irregularities which were detrimental to public interest. The writ application, in that view of the matter, was entertained and certain orders were passed from time to time by this Court. The moot question to be decided in this PIL application is as to whether the authorities could have allotted the land in question de-hors the conditions of settlement and contrary to the provisions of law. An impression is created to the Court from the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-6 that certain irregularities were committed while allotting the land in question. The matter, therefore, could have been examined by the authorities and they could have come to a logical conclusion either dispelling the report submitted by the Panchayat Prasar Adhikari or accepting the same. At the same time, it is desirable to notice the legal proposition as regards alternative remedy for raising such grievances under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which is the power of revision and review by the Government. Section 97 of the Act reads as under :- “97. Power of revision and review by Government.(1) The State Government may, either of its own motion or on an 3 application from any person interested, call for and examine the record of a Panchayati Raj Institution or of a Standing Committee or sub-committee thereof in respect of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein or as to the regularity of such proceedings and, if in any case, it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly. Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. . . . . . . . . .” In view of the specific provisions provided under Section 97 of the Act, the grievances may be raised by the interested persons like the writ petitioner, before the State Government. The scope of scrutiny and judicial review is limited under Article 226 of the Constitution whereas under Section 97 of the Act, the Government may examine the matter at the threshold and take appropriate decision. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the writ petitioner, if so advised, may raise the questions before the appropriate government under Section 97 of the Act. With these directions/observations, this PIL application is dismissed. It goes without saying that in case the power of the State Government under Section 97 of the Act is invoked, the State Government shall examine the matter and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, after hearing the necessary parties. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-