CWP No. 11066 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11066 of 2010 Date of decision : 23.02.2011 Gram Panchayat Village Fatehgarh Chatauli and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos 1 and 2 Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Petitioners Jaswinder Singh and others claiming themselves to be the members of the Gram Panchayat of Village Fategarh Chatauli, have preferred the instant writ petition, directing the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Roopnagar (for brevity “the B.D.P.O) and the Administrator of Gram Panchayat of Village Fategarh Chatauli (respondent No. 3) to utilise the grant of ` 2 lacs for the same purpose for which it was sanctioned and not otherwise, invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the constitution of India. 2. The case set up by the petitioners, in brief, insofar as relevant, was that, in pursuance of resolution No. 1 dated 03.02.2010 of Gram Panchayat of Village Fategarh Chatauli, the B.D.P.O has granted the sanction to its Administrator to spend the impugned grant for constructing the pucca streets of Village Fategarh Chatauli, vide sanction/letter dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P1). Thereafter, instead of utilising the grants for construction of pucca streets of the village, as per CWP No. 11066 of 2010 -2- sanction (Annexure P1), respondent Nos. 2 & 3 started spending the amount of grant unauthorisedly in the area of other village, which has separate Panchayat and has a right to get independent grant for their own requirement. The petitioners claimed that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are bent upon to misuse and spent the grants in some other village, meant for the street of village Fategarh Chatauli with the vested interest of diverting the funds illegally for non existent purpose and have thus exceeded their jurisdiction. The inhabitants of the village raised the objections in this regard but in vain. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequences of events, in all, according to the petitioners that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are misusing the amount of grant meant for the streets of village Fategarh Chatauli. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, petitioners prayed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to utilise the grant in question in village Fategarh Chatauli, as per sanction, in the manner depicted herein above. 4. The Administrator of Gram Panchayat (respondent No. 3) contested the claim of the petitioners and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petitions, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. The contesting respondent claimed that he has spent the amount of ` 2 lacs for the construction of road leading to village from the main road, after obtaining the approval from the higher authorities. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted, in this regard. 6. As is evident from the record that in the wake of resolution No. 1 dated 03.02.2010, the B.D.P.O granted the sanction to spend the amount of grant to pave CWP No. 11066 of 2010 -3- the pucca streets of village Gram Panchayat Fategarh Chatauli, vide approval/letter (Annexure P1). During the course of hearing of the instant writ petition, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) passed the following order on 10.10.2010. “Whether the funds provided by the Central Government under the Rural Development Fund can be diverted by the State Government for any other purpose than the one for which they were assigned, is the solitary grievance raised by the petitioner. In the present case, Rs. 2.00 lacs were granted to the Village Panchayat for construction of drains and streets. Maintenance of drains and streets (galian & nallian), to ensure public hygiene, is one of the essential duties of the Panchayat. To ward off any reoccurrence of epidemic, especially during rainy season when apprehension of outbreak of dengue, malaria and cholera is alarmingly high, Panchayat has to upkeep and maintain drains and streets. A lower functionary of the State cannot divert funds assigned for this purpose for any other purpose. In the present case, funds allocated for constructing gallian and nallian were diverted for constructing a link road for benefit of the affluent section of the village. Under whose authority it was so done?; whether this authority was validly exercised?, are the issues which are required to be adjudicated upon by this Court. 73rd Ammendment was introduced in the Constitution to empower the village Panchayats. Democracy at the grass-roots essentially mean that the allocated funds are spent for the welfare of the village by those who are elected by the people, the ultimate sovereign. It is a case where, against the will of the Panchayat, administrator appointed has diverted the funds. Gram Panchayat, through its three members, have knocked the doors of this Court alleging that the funds meant for the public hygiene of the village have been spent for the purpose other than the one for which they were allocated. At this stage, Shri Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab prays for an adjournment to revert back to this Court, as to how the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed”. 7. In compliance of the order of this Court, having got inquired into the matter, from the field officers, the Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Panchayat and Rural CWP No. 11066 of 2010 -4- Development filed an affidavit, which in substance is as under:- “Grant of rupees 1 Lac given under 12th Finance Commission by Govt. of India has not been spent and is lying in the bank account of Gram Panchayat, however the enquiry officer found that the Deputy Commissioner issued the grant of Rs.1.00 lac for the streets and drains vide Cheque No. 002626, dated 6.7.2009 and grant of rupees 1 Lac issued vide letter No. 002627, dated 2.1.2009 for the disposal of sullage water from Rural Development fund, administered by the Department of Agriculture, Punjab but the administrator Gram Panchayat, Fatehgarh Chautli has spent the aforesaid amount for construction of the main rasta and total amount of Rs.200406/- has been spent for constructing the same. The Administrator constructed the main rasta of the village falling in jurisdiction of the other village by spending, both these grants. This amount has been spent against the spirit of sanction letter and rules. Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar issued the wrong utilistation certificate of this amount without verifying the sanction letter. Thus the grants have been misutilized by Sh. Baldev Singh Administrator, Jaswinder Singh, Panchayat Secretary, Junior Engineer and Sh. Roop Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer Ropar. After considering the enquiry report, the disciplinary action is being initiated against all the erring officers. To redress the grievance of the petitioners a grant of rupees of 1 Lac can be give to Gram Panchayat for Construction of streets & drains and rupees 1 lac for disposal of sullage water for which DC, Ropar will be requested”. 8. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on the record that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have illegally diverted the amount of indicated grant to some other village in an un-lawful manner and,thus, have exceeded their jurisdiction, in this relevant connection. The grant sanctioned for a particular purpose of the development of a particular village, cannot be permitted to be spent on the development work in the area of some other village, as has been done by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the instant case. Therefore, their action is illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted with costs. The respondents are directed to utilise the grant in question in the same manner CWP No. 11066 of 2010 -5- and for the same indicated purpose for which it was actually sanctioned for constructing the pucca streets in village Fategarh Chatauli, by means of sanction (Annexure P1) and not otherwise. 10. Needless to mention here that respondent No. 1 will complete already initiated departmental enquiry against the respondent Nos 2 & 3 or any other erring officers/officials, will take, it to its logical conclusion and award adequate punishment, in this relevant connection. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 23, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No