IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4167 of 2010 Anita Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 4. 24.08.2011 Heard. Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Bharti learned A.C. to S.C. 26 for the State and Mr. Nikesh Kumar for the Zila Parishad, Patna. The petitioner an Ex-Pramukh of Maner Panchayat Samati falling under Patna Zila Parishad, has filed the present writ petition questioning the decision of the Deputy Development Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, Patna as contained in a letter dated 29.06.2009 wherein the Deputy Development Commissioner who also happens to be the Secretary of the District Planning Committee constituted under Section 167 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, has forwarded certain schemes, for allotment under the Backward Area Grant Scheme for the financial year 2008-09 to 2011-12. It is the grievance of the petitioner that whereas the Maner Panchayat consists of 25 Panchayat Samiti areas, the scheme accepted and forwarded by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad, Patna is relatable to only five of such Panchayat Samiti areas namely, Khaspur, Kita Chouhattar(East), Sherpur (West, Part II), Baluan and Sarai. It is the contention of the petitioner that as an elected representative of the public, the District Planning Committee cannot adopt a pick and choose policy in the matter of providing benefits arising from the backward region grant funds scheme. The position, in 2 fact, has been admitted by the Deputy Development Commissioner in his counter affidavit filed as well as by the Assistant Director, Panchayat Raj Department filing counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 3. An explanation however, has been given in paragraph 8 & 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that as the area of the member of any panchayat or municipality is not the unit for planning, hence, it was not necessary that all the plans proposed by any Panchayat Samiti covering the entire Panchayat area falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti ought to be accepted by the District Planning Committee. It is contended that because of limited availability of funds it was not possible to include all the plans proposed and approved by the Panchayat Samiti. It is also sought to be canvassed that as the petitioner in his capacity of Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti has submitted his proposal belatedly on 26.03.2010 while the meeting of the District Planning Committee had already taken place on 27.01.2010, hence all the proposals of the Panchayat Samiti Maner could not be incorporated in the action plan of the District Planning Committee. It is undisputed that the District Planning Committee has not accepted the proposals covering the entire Panchayat Samiti area falling under the Maner Panchayat Samiti, rather only 5 Panchayat Samiti areas seem to benefit from the proposals accepted by the District Planning Committee, Patna for all the four financial years i.e. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 as is also manifest from the letter of the Deputy Development Commissioner dated 29.06.2009 placed at Annexure-6 of the writ petition. 3 It has not been explained either in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Panchayat Raj Department or the Zila Parishad, Patna as to why only five of these Panchayat samiti areas have been picked up for all the four financial years ignoring the other areas situated under the Panchayat Samiti. Definitely, availability of fund is a relevant criteria for implementation of the scheme but its allocation has to be made equitably so as to benefit the entire backward region falling under a Panchayat Samiti. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the materials available on the records the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to Panchayat Samiti, Maner through its elected representative to file an exhaustive representation giving out the details of the scheme pertaining to the entire Panchayat Samiti area in the prescribed form and within prescribed period and which shall be considered by the District Planning Committee, Patna, on the principles of equitable consideration and purposeful distribution of the funds allotted under the Backward Region Grants Scheme of the State for its utilization in the backward areas falling under the Panchayat Samiti taking into consideration the necessity and urgency of each panchayat samiti area falling under the Panchayat Samiti, Maner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Saif/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)