Rajdhar Patel vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, being an ex-office bearer, cannot be permitted to use information obtained during his tenure or through RTI against the present Sarpanch and Secretary, as it amounts to an 'encashment of political rivalries' and encourages unhealthy practices in democracy. The Court noted that the Collector and Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat are competent authorities to take action under Sections 40 and 89 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. The Court found that the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam is a complete code that prescribes powers and procedures for supervision and control of Gram Panchayat office bearers and employees. Therefore, even if an inquiry was pending, the High Court could not monitor it under the garb of a Public Interest Litigation. The petition was dismissed on these grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajdhar Patel, an ex-Serviceman and former Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mahmudpur, filed a pro bono publico writ petition alleging financial irregularities, procurement violations, and illegalities in the functioning of the Gram Panchayat. He cited non-compliance with the Madhya Pradesh Store Purchase and Service Procurement Rules, 2015, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Accounts) Rules, 1999. The petitioner alleged irregularities in the procurement of an E-Rickshaw for Rs. 2,98,350/- from an unauthorized vendor, incinerator machines for Rs. 99,000/-, and dustbins for Rs. 3,02,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also pointed out discrepancies in bills, cash book maintenance, and the use of undated bills signed by a former In-charge Sarpanch. Despite multiple complaints to various authorities, including the Collector and Principal Secretary, no effective enquiry was completed. A committee was constituted, but its report was allegedly not submitted. The petitioner sought a time-bound, high-level enquiry and prosecution of responsible persons.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as an ex-office bearer, can maintain a public interest litigation based on information obtained during his tenure and through RTI against the current office bearers of the Gram Panchayat, concerning alleged financial irregularities and procurement violations, thereby raising questions of maintainability and potential misuse of information for political rivalry, under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the alleged irregularities involve public funds and affect public interest, necessitating judicial intervention. He argued that his complaints, based on official records and RTI replies, have not led to effective action, and therefore, a high-level enquiry monitored by the Court is required. Respondents' arguments: The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations are baseless, purchases were made following due procedure, and the petition should be dismissed. They implicitly argued that the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam provides a complete code for addressing such grievances, and the High Court should not interfere.