BLOCK SAMITI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 721, 3127, 3326, 3970 of 1972 and 528 of 1973, which contain similar facts. I am, however, giving the facts from Civil Writ No. 721 of 1972.

(2.) The petitioner Panchayat Samiti has been constituted under the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Panchayat Samitis is a corporate body having a perpetual succession. The powers, functions and duties of the Panchayat Samitis have been enumerated specifically in Section 41 of the Act and they broadly relate to the development of agriculture; animal husbandry and fisheries; maintenance and expansion of health services and rural sanitation, control of epidemics etc; means of communications-construction, repair and maintenance of inter-village roads and culverts on such roads etc.; establishment of media for social education-community development liabilities encouragement of physical and cultural activities, promotion of co-operation and development of cottage industries etc. etc. Section 21 of the Act provides that the Block Development Officer shall be ex-officio Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti and he shall be under the administrative control of the Panchayat Samiti, and his conditions of service shall be those which are applicable to the class of Government servants to which he belongs. Government servants of many classes have been placed at the disposal of the Panchayat Samitis by the Government and their conditions of service and status are governed by Section 35 of the Act. Under Section 21, it is clearly laid down that the Executive Officer shall be under the administrative control of the Panchayat Samiti. The 'control' includes all forms of administrative supervision and authority except the power to appoint and dismiss. It includes the power to sanction the leave, to approve the tour programme and to write the report. The respondent No. 1 issued an order on July 7, 1971, (Annexure 'A') purporting to be under sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Act laying down the extent of administrative control exercisable by various authorities over the officials whose services have been placed by various Departments of the Government at the disposal of the Panchayat Samitis under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act. These powers are mentioned in the Schedule attached with the order. According to the annexure appended to the order, Block Development and Panchayat Officer falls in group I. According to entry 51 of the Schedule, power to restrict the duration and frequency of tour of the Executive Officer vested in the Panchayat Samiti. The power to permit exchange of daily allowance for mileage allowance during the whole period of the tour and the power to disallow travelling allowance for a journey to attend an obligatory examination etc. were vested in the Panchayat Samiti under entries 52 and 53 of the Schedule respectively. The Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti was authorized to countersign the T.A. bills of Executive Officers by entry 55. These powers were in exercise of effective and efficient control over the Executive Officer. The respondent No. 1, has issued another order on September 17, 1971 (Annexure 'B') by which the powers entrusted to Panchayat Samiti and Chairman have been taken away from the Panchayat Samiti, and the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, and they have been given to the Deputy Commissioner. The Panchayat Samiti has been left without any effective control over the Executive Officer on account of the aforesaid change. As the administrative control of the Executive Officer vests in the Panchayat Samiti, the Government cannot interfere in this control. The Executive Officer being under the administrative control of the Panchayat Samiti the confidential reports on his work and conduct were used to be written by the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. Respondent No. 1, by letter dated November 30, 1971, has ordered that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) will, in future, write his report after the same had been initiated by the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, and thereafter forward the same to the Deputy Commissioner. This order is in violation of Section 21 of the Act and is therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) The Deputy Commissioner, under Section 101 of the Act has been given powers to enter on and inspect, or authorise other person to enter on and inspect, any immovable property of the Panchayat Samiti, he can by an order in writing call and inspect any documents in the possession and control of the Panchayat Samiti or any subordinate authority thereof. This Section, however, does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to authorise the Sub-Divisional Officer or the District Development Officer or the Panchayat Officer to inspect the records of the Panchayat Samiti. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the District Development Officer have been and are pressing the petitioner to allow inspection of the records which is clearly against the aforesaid Section and that all the aforesaid orders are illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents and a return has been filed by the Deputy Secretary, Development Department, in which it is stated that the orders are perfectly legal and within the jurisdiction of the Government.