1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Hans Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and others. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3008/2008 ......... Date of Order : 08/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Sudheer Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Bhati } Mr. Manoj Bhandari } for the respondents. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order Annex-7 dated 3.5.2008 passed by District Collector, Jalore and order Annex.4 dated 19.6.2007 passed by respondent No.3 Panchayat Samiti, Sayla. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders impugned and the material available on record. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner 2 that for renovation of the public Chowk, the petitioner incurred the expenses in the memory of his Late father Mohan Lal Mutha on the condition that the public chowk be declared as “Mohan Lal Mutha Family Chowk”. The respondent Gram Panchayat Mandavala passed a resolution on 20.5.2003 vide Resolution No.10 for the purpose of renovation of the chowk and in pursuance thereof the work of construction of C.C. Road and Drainage was undertaken and ultimately completed. The petitioner under the Scheme “Guru Golvalkar Jan Bhagidari Vikas Yojna” (for short “GGY Scheme” hereinafter) incurred a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- for construction of C.C. Road and Drainage and therefore, as per the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat, the Chowk was sought to be declared as public chowk in the name of Sanghvi Mohanlal Mutha Family. The matter was taken up with the Zila Parishad, Jalore and by communication Annex.2 dated 16.4.2007, the Zila Parishad, Jalore communicated the respondent Gram Panchayat Mandvala that Shri Rajendra Dave, Ward Panch, Ward No.2, Gram Panchayat Mandvala has filed an application before the Collector, Jalore stating therein that the general public is prepared to develop the public Chock situated at village Mandvala and sanction may be accorded to declare it as Devasthan Chowk and to fix nomenclature plate. A copy of the application was sent to the Gram Panchayat, Mandvala to pass a resolution under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 3 Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat resolved to name the chock as “Devasthan Chowk”. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner. By order dated 3.5.2008, the District Collector, Jalore respondent No.7 considering the every aspect of the matter elaborately came to the conclusion that the petitioner incurred the expenses of Rs. 3,25,000/- for construction of CC Road and Drainage, whereas according to the Scheme at Village Mandvala for public chock, the total amount of Rs. 9,70,300/- was sanctioned and accordingly administrative and financial sanction was accorded by the State Govt. and a sum of Rs. 2,91,100/- was received from the public contribution and a sum of Rs. 6,79,200/- was the amount incurred by the State Govt. and as per the completion report and certificates issued, an amount of Rs. 9,69,998/- has been incurred as expenses for the construction of the CC Road and Drainage and public contribution to that was only 2,91,100/-. However, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he contributed Rs. 3,25,000/- by a cheque/bank draft issued in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Mandvala. According to the terms and conditions of the policy known as GGY Policy, if the donor incurs the expenses upto 75% of the total expenses, then before the name of the Govt., the name of the donor is to be mentioned on the nomenclature plate, if the donor incurs 50% of the total expenses, then his name can be shown after the name of Govt. and if the donor incurs less than 50% of the 4 total expenses, his name only can be mentioned in the list of donors and considering the fact that the petitioner has neither incurred 50% of the total expenses, nor 75%, since he has issued a cheque/demand draft in favour of the respondent Gram Panchayat, Mandvala for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- which is less than 50% of the total expenses incurred for the construction of the chowk, CC Road and Drainage etc. therefore, the name as suggested by the donor petitioner cannot be put on the nomenclature place either before the name of the Govt. or after the name of the Govt. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of this writ petition. I have carefully gone through the notification issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development dated 24.9.2004 providing guidelines in respect of work undertaken under the GGY Scheme with the contribution of the donors and as per the scheme the name of donor only can be added after the Govt.'s name if the donor incurs 50% of the total expenses and before the name of the Govt. if the donor incurs 75% of the total expenses incurred. In the circumstances, therefore, since the petitioner has not incurred the expenses either 50% or 75% of the total expenses and therefore, he is not entitled to add his name either before the name of the Govt. or after the name of the Govt. The learned District Collector, Jalore respondent No.7 has elaborately considered the point in issue 5 and therefore, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 6 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 5512/08 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3008/2008 ......... Date of Order : 08/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Sudheer Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Bhati } Mr. Manoj Bhandari } for respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp