- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by power hungry petitioner for getting power under Section 23 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not given power under the aforesaid Section and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred because the petitioner is a member of the Gorsanda panchayat, District-Gooda and he is in search of powers and for implementation of Section 76 Ka especially Sub-clause XXVI. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless and until these powers are given, the Panchayat Samiti of the concerned village cannot work and perform the duty under the Act, 2001 and, therefore, let a suitable direction be given to the respondent-State to confer such powers so that the petitioner can perform his duties.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and as stated in Annexure-1 of the counter affidavit, there is already a clarification made to the extent that it has become fashion in the State of Jharkhand to demand powers under the Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. Such powers are already there with them and there is already a clarification letter issued by the respondent-State vide letter dated 11th March, 2011 that as per Section 73, there is already such power vested in the Panchayat. Whatever is the function of the Panchayat Samiti or Committee, the same can be performed under the Act, 2001 without any additional conferment of the power by the State. This aspect of the matter has already been clarified by clarification letter dated 11th March, 2011, which is at Annexure-1 of the counter affidavit. Unnecessarily, the present petition has been preferred by the present petitioner against the State. The State has nothing to do, at all, in the whole matter. The powers of the members of the Panchayat are coupled with the duties. The only thing left out is the performance of power coupled with the duties by the Panchayat Samiti and, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner is in search of some powers. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially argued that the petitioner is in search of power under Section 23 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 and later on he amended the argument and submitted that the petitioner should be given power under Section 73 (Kha) Sub-section 11 of the Act, 2001 and further he amended the argument and submitted that the powers should be given under Section 76 (Ka) and more particularly under Clause XXVI of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 so that several functions of the Panchayat Samiti can be performed by the petitioner, as he being a member of the Panchayat of Village-Gorsanda, District-Godda. (ii) It further appears that the present petition has been preferred frivolously and without any justifiable reason. Looking to Annexure-1 of the counter affidavit, it appears that there is already a clarification letter issued by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj dated 11th March, 2011, wherein, it has been stated that the members are already having power coupled with the duty under the Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, more particularly under Section 73. There is no need of additional conferment of power by the State to the Panchayat members. All the powers and duties have been assigned by the Act of 2001. Simply, they have to read and perform the duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to match any head and tail in the whole matter that what the petitioner is searching from the Government and what is yet lacking, which is yet to be supplied by the Government. Nothing is mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is yet to be done by the Government. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. (iii) It also appears that after canvassing long argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and after consuming much time of this Court, now he wants to withdraw this writ petition. I am not inclined to allow the withdrawal of this writ petition. Unnecessarily, this writ petition has been preferred out of sheer ignorance and from the confusion of his own. There is no additional power to be supplied to the petitioner by the respondent State. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for allowing this writ petition. (iv) When this Court asked a question whether is there any single duty of the State, which is yet to be performed for the petitioner, the answer is nil from the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), which shall be deposited by the petitioner with respondent No. 1 within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, it shall be recovered from the petitioner as land revenue by the respondent State.;