JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. On the allegation that the fund in respect of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna was not properly being utilised by the Pradhan, in exercise of the powers under Section 95 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947, the State Government through Block Development Officer, Budaun, had sought to exercise external control in the matter by asking the Pradhan to furnish statement of accounts for the periods 1995-96 and 1996-97 within a stipulated period. But the Pradhan had failed to produce statement of accounts or any other document with regard to the said two financial years. In the circumstances, by an order dated 27.9.1997, the fund under Jawahar Rojgar Yojna in Account No. 6455 was seized so that no further amount could be withdrawn from the said fund. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition by the Pradhan.
2. Mr. A. K. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of Section 95 (1) (g), no enquiry could be made against the Pradhan unless the same is followed in accordance with the rules being U. P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules. 1997 and the complaint is supported by an affidavit. He also contends that the complaint was signed by 11 members and some of the signatures were forged. His further contention is that the Block Development Officer had no authority to suspend the financial power of the Pradhan.
3. After having heard Mr. Sachan and Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it appears from the notice contained in Annexure-3, that the said notice was not a notice within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (g) for removal of the Pradhan. If the enquiry is not an enquiry within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (g) of the 1947 Act. in that event U. P. Panchayat Raj [Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 cannot be attracted. The title of the said rules itself shows that the said rules relate to an enquiry relating to removal of Pradhan. In the present case, the enquiry has not been Initiated for the purpose of removing the Pradhan. On the other hand, it was an enquiry with regard to exercise of external control as provided in Section 95 (1) (b) or 95 (1) (c) read with clause (e) of Section 95 (1). The 1997 Rules had never been intended to apply in respect of an enquiry within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (e). Therefore, it is not necessary that such complaint is to be made supported by an affidavit as is required under the said rules. The impugned order itself shows that it was only seizure of a particular account in view cf the fact that the Pradhan had failed to furnish statements of accounts with regard to the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Thus, it is not suspension of the financial power of the Pradhan altogether. It is only in respect of utilisation of a particular fund, of which In normal course the Pradhan should have furnished the statements of account, but the Pradhan is unable to produce the same even after being asked through the said notice.
4. In case the contention of Mr. Sachan as advanced is accepted, in that event the provisions of Section 95 (1) (e) would become redundant and Inexecutable and the purpose of incorporation of the said provision of external control shall be altogether frustrated. The State Government is competent to institute an enquiry in respect of any matter relating to Gram Panchayat and in course of such enquiry. It may also ask for production of documents and it is entitled to inspect the documents in possession or under control of the Panchayat. If It seems that a particular fund Is not properly utilised and despite asking therefor when relevant record is not produced and made available for inspection, in that event it is well within the competence of the State Government to exercise external control as it may deem fit in order to give effect to the provisions of Section 95 (1) (e) read with clauses (b) and (c) of Section 95 (1).
5. So far as the decision cited by Mr. Sachan in the case of Smt. Saroj Kumari Yadau v. State of U. P. and others. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 384 (MB) of 1998, disposed of on 11.9.1998 by a Division Bench), is concerned, the facts of the said case are different. Inasmuch as there the provisions of 1997 Rules were admittedly applicable and the question was looked at on the basis of the provisions made therein with regard to an enquiry for the purpose of removing a Pradhan, a fact distinguishable from the facts involved in the present case. Therefore, no inspiration can be drawn from the ratio decided therein.
6. The decision in the case of Chunmun v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and another. Writ Petition No. 22130 of 1998, decided on 3.9.1998 by learned single Judge is also distinguishable on the similar analogy that in this case also, the question relating to 1997 Rules was Involved Inasmuch as it was with regard to an enquiry within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (g) of the Panchayat Raj Act read with 1997 Rules. Therefore, on similar analogy as observed earlier, the said decision also does not help Mr. Sachan.
7. The point that the Block Development Officer has no power to interfere with the financial power of the Pradhan. as raised by Mr. Sachan. does not seem to be convincing. Inasmuch as the seizure of the fund is not an interference with the financial power of the Pradhan. That apart, though designated as Block Development Officer, the authority is the designated officer for controlling the financial matters, viz., Zila Artha Evam Sankhyadhikari, a post specially created for the purpose of supervising utilisation of such funds. If he is denuded of such power, then there would be no scope of any control. The object and purpose of control would then be frustrated.
8. In that view of the matter. I am not Inclined to Interfere with the Impugned order at this stage. However, It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order at a subsequent stage or to apply for revocation of the order Impugned being Annexure-1 to the writ petition before the competent authority after complying with the notice contained in Annexure-3 and upon production of relevant statement of accounts.
9. The writ petition stands finally disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.