ANIS AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is fo-cussed on the communication dated 4.12.2000 (Annexure-1 to the petition) whereby the petitioner who is the Executive Officer in the Nagar Panchayat, Lalgopal Ganj. Allahabad, has been called upon to furnish details of itemised purpose of the sum withdrawn in the financial year 2000-2001 in connection with development work and other allied works within the circle of Nagar Panchayat. Lalgopal Ganj. It has been specified in the impugned communication that if the petitioner defaults in furnishing details as demanded for requisition by the District Magistrate, the matter would be forwarded to the State Government/Directorate for appropriate action against the petitioner. The impugned communication is sought to be quashed basically on the ground that the District Magistrate is not clothed with the authority to call for details of the funds allocated to the Nagar Panchayat, Lalgopal Ganj, in the absence of a notification appointing the District Magistrate as 'Prescribed Authority' within the meaning of Section 2 (17) (ii) read with Section 32 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. It is not disputed that Section 32 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1960, empowers the 'Prescribed Authority' (a) to inspect, or cause to be inspected, by an officer not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer, any immovable property used or occupied by a board or joint committee, or any work in progress under the direction of a board or of such committee ; (b) by order in writing call for and inspect a book or document in the possession or under the control of a board or of such committee : (c) by order in writ-ing require a board or such committee to furnish such statements, accounts. reports or copies of documents, relating to the proceedings or duties of the board or committee, as it thinks fit to call for : and (d) record in writing, for the consideration of a board or of such committee, any observations it thinks proper in regard to the proceedings or duties of the board or committee. It has been canvassed by Sri A. K. Misra that since the District Magistrate has not been notified in the Official Gazette as 'Prescribed Authority', the Commissioner of the division alone could exercise the power of supervision under Section 32 of the Act. The Court by its order dated 13.12.2000 required the stand-ing counsel to obtain instructions as to whether the District Magistrate, Allahabad, had been appointed as 'Prescribed Authority' for the purposes of Section 32 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 1960. A short counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Baikunth Raj Dwivedi, Officer Incharge Local Bodies, Allahabad and along with the counter-affidavit, certain notifications including the notifi- cations dated June 21, 2000, May 20, 1998 and August 13, 1998 are annexed. A perusal of the notification dated June 21, 2000 (Annexure-CA3) would manifest that it deals with the disbursement of money to the local bodies on the recommendation of State Finance Commission for the year 2000-2001. The notification aforestated envisages the procedure for disbursement of the money to the Nagar Nigams/Nagar Panchayats. The bills for withdrawal of funds from the Treasury transferred/allocated to Nagar Panchayats according to para 2 (3) of the notification are required to be countersigned by the concerned Ziladhikari/Collector in the case of Nagar Panchayat and by the Commissioner in the case of funds transferred to Nagar Palika Parishad. The notification dated August 13, 1993 (Annexure-CA3) fastens an implicit obligation on the District Magistrate to supervise the utilisation of funds by the local bodies. Section 33 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 1960, also postulates that work, on institution, constructed or maintained, in whole or part, at the expense of a Board, and all registers, books, accounts or other documents relating thereto "shall at all times be open to inspection by such officers as the State Government appoints in this behalf." The action taken by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, by means of the impugned communication does not have the complexion of an action under Section 32 of the U. P. Municipalities Act which action can, of course, be performed only by the 'Prescribed Authority' as defined in Section 2 (17) (ii) of the Act and if no officer is appointed as 'Prescribed Authority', then by the Commissioner of the division but in the instant case, action sought to be taken by the District Magistrate by means of the impugned communication has the blessing of Section 33 of the Act for which the District Magistrate is duly empowered by means of the notification aforestated.

(2.) Sri A. K. Misra, however, submits that in view of 73rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District Magistrate is bereft of jurisdiction to interfere with the functioning of the local bodies. The argument, in our opinion, is tinged with misconception. The allotment of funds to the local bodies on the recommendation by the State Finance Commission is hedged with certain conditions and it is the contingency of such conditions read with Section 33 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 1960, from which stems the power for the District Magistrate to call upon the Executive Officer of a Nagar Panchayat to submit details relating to the money drawn from the Treasury and the expenditure incurred. Such an action does not constitute infringement of any provisions of the Constitution. I feel called to observe here that by means of the impugned communication, the District Magistrate. Allahabad, has innocuously asked the petitioner to furnish details of the money withdrawn for various development activities and other allied works pertaining to the Nagar Panchayat, Lalgopal Gang, for the financial year 2000-2001. It is worth noticing here that no action has been taken against the petitioner as yet and all that has been stated in the impugned communication is that in case the petitioner fails to furnish requisite information and to produce the desired record, the matter shall be reported to the Government/ Directorate for appropriate action against the petitioner. We find no justification for any interference at this stage.

(3.) As a result of the foregoing discussion, the petition fails and dismissed in limine.