RAJENDRA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Chairman, Basudevpur Panchayat Samiti, for quashing the Resolution of the Zilla Parishad so far as it relates to approval by the Zilla Parishad of the Annual Action Plan as per Annexure -1. It is stated in the petition that the Block Development Officer (in short, the 'B.D.O.') on his own convened a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti and a resolution as per Annexure -6 was purportedly passed preparing the Annual Action Plan. It further appears that the present petitioner did not sign in the said resolution as according to him, the meeting had not been convened in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Subsequently, in the meeting of the Zilla Parishad, the petitioner raised protest about the Annual Action Plan as submitted by the B.D.O. and the Zilla Parishad permitted the petitioner to file a revised Action Plan. It is not disputed that such revised Annual Action Plan was submitted by 19.4.2000. However, on 15.4.2000, the Zilla Parishad approved the Action Plan already submitted by the B.D.O. on the ground that no revised Action Plan has been submitted by 14.4.2000. This action of the Zilla Parishad has been impugned by the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the provision contained in Section 20 -A of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act (in short, the 'Act'), the relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder :'

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Intervenors as well as for the State also submitted that as no Action Plan had been submitted by 14th April, 2000, the Action Plan submitted by the B.D.O. had been approved by the Zilla Parishad. In this connection, it has been pointed out that in the meeting of the Zilla Parishad dated 11.4.2000 it had been decided that the Annual Action Plan should be submitted by 14.4.2000. Even if such a resolution was passed, it could not have been followed as such resolution was contrary to the provisions under the Panchayat Samiti Act relating to period of notice. Rule 5(1) of the Conduct of Business Rules contemplates that seven days' notice is required to be given for convening a meeting. Therefore, even if such a resolution was passed, giving effect to such a resolution would have been contrary to the provisions of the statutory Rules. In such view of the manner, the subsequent action of the Zilla Parishad on 15.4.2000 approving the Annual Action Plan which had been submitted by the B.D.O. pursuant to purported resolution of an improperly convened meeting of the Panchayat Samiti was illegal. Law is well settled that when the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed, such act must be performed in the manner prescribed, or not at all. In the present case, the meeting convened by the B.D.O. was not in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the Act as well as under the Rules and as such the so - called resolution relating to the approval of the Annual Action Plan was non est. In above view of the manner, the resolutions under Annexures -1 and 6 are quashed.