PINTU RANI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside memo No. 534 dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 4) by reasons of which an order for recovery of Rs.3,77,016/- has been passed against the petitioner with a direction to deposit the same in the office of Block Development Officer, Katkamdag, failing which an F.I.R. would be lodged against her and the said amount would be recovered through certificate proceeding. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from taking any step for ceasing the financial powers of the petitioner as Mukhiya of Adra Gram Panchayat, Block-Katkamdag, Hazar-ibag.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is the Mukhiya of Adra Gram Panchayat since December 2010. In the year 2014, the Gram Sabha passed a resolution for purchase of solar street lights as the grants for the same was available under the 13 th Finance Commission. The said resolution was also approved by the Panchayat Cabinet comprising the Ward Members, Panchayat Secretary (the government s representative) and the Mukhiya as its Chairman. Accordingly, quotations were invited from three dealers and thereafter on comparison, the supply orders for purchase of 17 solar street lights were placed to the dealer who quoted the lowest price. Again as per the available funds under the 14 th Finance Commission, the Gram Sabha passed resolution for purchase of seven (07) solar street lights which was also approved by the Panchayat Cabinet and as per the procedure, the quotations were invited from three dealers. On comparison of the said quotations, the supply order for seven solar street lights was placed to the dealer quoting the lowest price i.e. M/s. Surya Energy, Hazaribagh. Subsequently, a complaint was made in the Chief Minister s Public Grievance Cell relating to purchase of the solar street lights under the 14 th Finance Commission alleging inter alia that the solar light sets were available @ Rs.17,000/- per unit with the Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (JREDA), but instead of purchasing the same from JREDA, those were purchased at the higher rate from private dealer. The Block Development Officer, Katkamdag (the respondent No. 5) got the matter enquired through Panchayat Sewak who submitted the report vide letter No. 276 dated 01.04.2017 stating inter alia that the purchase of 7 set of solar street lights was made after comparing respective quotations obtained from three dealers out of which M/s. Surya Agency was selected having quoted the lowest rate i.e. Rs.31,900/- each. The respondent No. 5, vide memo No. 789 dated 04.09.2017 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as well as to the Panchayat Secretary, Adra Gram Panchayat seeking clarification regarding the circumstances under which supply orders were placed to M/s. Surya Energy instead of placing the order to the JREDA and as to why resolution No. 221/finance dated 03.02.2011 was not followed in the matter of procurement of the solar street lights. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice through the Panchayat Secretary, however the said reply was not forwarded by the said Pan-chayat Secretary to the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 vide letter No. 952 dated 30.10.2017 submitted his enquiry report to the Director, Accounts Administration and Self- Employment, District Rural Development Authority, Hazaribag, a copy of which was also forwarded to the respondent No. 4. Subsequently, an order for recovery of Rs.3,77,016/- as contained in impugned memo No. 534 dated 31.10.2017 was passed with a direction to the petitioner that if she failed to deposit the said amount, an F.I.R. would be lodged against her and the said amount would be recovered through certificate proceeding. As soon as the petitioner came to know that her reply was not submitted before the respondent No. 5, she requested the respondent No. 5 vide her letter dated 08.11.2017 to recall the order of recovery, however the said request was not considered by the respondent No.5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 2) on 11.12.2017, however the said representation was also not considered and in the meantime, the petitioner came to know from the news reports that her finanacial power as Mukhiya of the said Panchayat had been ceased. Hence, the present writ petition.