JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Jagannath under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that certain proceedings taken against him for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3378/- beginning with the requisition for a certificate under sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (Act No. V of 1952, hereinafter called the Act) be quashed as being entirely illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this application are briefly these. It appears that the petitioner Jagannath held the office of Upsarpanch and Sarpanch (it is not quite clear from the record for what specific periods he held these offices) of the Gram Panchayat Roheda at all material times with which we are concerned. It is admitted that a sum of Rs. 3378/- was advanced by the State Government as grant-in-aid to this Panchayat for the construction of certain works within the jurisdiction of the said Panchayat, but this money was not utilised for the specified purposes but was instead applied for certain other works within the area of the Panchayat. On an objection being raised by the Panchayat Prasar Adhikari, Pindwara, it was decided that it be recovered from the petitioner. In pursuance of this decision, the Block Development Officer Pindwara issued a requisition for a Certificate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mount Abu, for the recovery of the said sum from the petitioner. Under the column "nature of the public demand for which this requisition is made" it was specified that these were the amounts of grant-in-aid which had not been utilised for the purpose for which they were granted. On having received this requisition, the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice to the petitioner dated the 3rd April, 1958 under sec. 6 of the Act. By this notice, the petitioner was asked to pay the money or if he so desired to deny his liability and show cause for the same. In reply the petitioner denied his liability. According to the petitioner Ex. 3 dated the 5th January, 1958, was the objection filed by him in this behalf. It is conceded before us by learned counsel for the petitioner that the date which this objection purports to bear namely the 5th January, 1958, is wrong and that must indeed be as because the notice given to the petitioner under sec. 6 of the Act is itself dated the 3rd April, 1958. We are also disposed to think that Ex. 3 cannot be the objection which was in the first instance filed by the petitioner denying his liability because one of the allegations made therein is that the Block Development Officer at Pindwara (to whom obviously the objection had been filed) did not hear and determine his objection submitted u/sec. 8 of the Act. It may be convenient to point out at this place that according to the respondent State the petitioner's objection is Ex. 4 dated the 20. 5. 1958 (although here again the date of this objection as stated by the respondent in its reply being the 4. 6. 1958 is erroneous ). THE substance of the objection raised by the petitioner was that the entire money which was sought to be recovered from him and for which a certificate was issued against him had been given to the Panchayat and not to him and that this money was actually utilised in accordance with certain resolutions of the Panchayat to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail although those purposes were different from those for which the money had been originally allocated. THE Sub-Divisional Officer forwarded the objection to the Block Development Officer who had made the requisition for the realisation of the amount in dispute u/sec. 8 of the Act. It was for the Block Development Officer to hear and determine the objection and then to communicate its result to the authority before which the certificate had originally been filed. But instead what seems to have been done, and this is indeed accepted by the respondent State in its reply, was that the Block Development Officer in his turn forwarded the petitioner's objection to the Panchayat Extension Officer C-D Block, Pindwara for report and as that report turned out to be unfavourable to the petitioner, he forwarded the same to the Sub-Divisional Officer and requested him to proceed with the recovery of the disputed amount. It is strenuously urged before us on behalf of the petitioner that the procedure followed by the Block Development Officer was in flagrant violation of the provisions of sec. 8 of the Act and was entirely illegal and without jurisdiction. On the 21st September, 1958, the Sub-Divisional Officer sent the papers to the Tehsildar Pindwara for further necessary action. On the 31st December, 1958, the petitioner allegedly came to know of the Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated the 21st September, 1958. He filed a revision application before the Collector Sirohi under sec. 23 B (a) of the Act which appears to have been entertained by the Collector and a stay order was also issued. We pause here to point out that this proceeding was mis-conceived inasmuch as the Sub-Divisional Officer in the present case was admittedly exercising the powers of Collector himself, which had been delegated to him and, therefore, no revision was competent. It then appears that for certain reasons which are not stated in the writ application and presumably because it was realised that the revision filed by the petitioner before the Collector was an erroneous proceeding, the petitioner carried an appeal from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated the 21st September, 1958, to the Commissioner. As this application was obviously barred by time, the petitioner also made an application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay and further prayed that his appeal may, in the alternative be treated as a revision under sec. 238 (b) of the Act. THE Commissioner dismissed the appeal as barred by time and also refused to interfere in the exercise of his revisio-nal jurisdiction by his order dated the 30th September, 1959. THEreafter the petitioner went up in revision to the Board of Revenue but without any success. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up with the present writ application.

(3.) THESE provisions, in our opinion, abundantly make it clear that a Panchayat is a body corporate under the Act of 1953 and that it cannot be possibly equated with the Government. That being so, we do not see that there can be any escape from the conclusion that a sum of money payable to a Panchayat cannot be held to be payable to the Government.