W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 AND W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 *** W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025: Umesh Chandra Behera, Aged about 52 years, Son of late Musi Behera, At/P.O.: Kulashree, P.S.: Niali, District: Cuttack, Chairman, Niali Block, Panchayat Samiti, Niali. … Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Chief Secretary to Government, Lokaseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 2. State of Odisha, represented through Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government, Panchayati Raj Department, Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. … Opposite parties. W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 AND W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025: Umesh Chandra Behera, Aged about 52 years, Son of late Musi Behera, At/P.O.: Kulashree, P.S.: Niali, District: Cuttack, Chairman, Niali Block, Panchayat Samiti, Niali. … Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Chief Secretary to Government, Lokaseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 2. State of Odisha, represented through Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government, Panchayati Raj Department, Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. … Opposite parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025: For the Petitioner : Mr. Subir Palit and Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocates W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Assisted by M/s. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Premananda Swain, Satyabrata Mahapatra, Bivasini Bhuyan, Jagyaseni Bhuyan and Subarna Keshari Panda, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, Government Advocate AND W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025: For the Petitioner : Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, Senior Advocate Assisted by M/s. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Premananda Swain, Satyabrata Mahapatra, Bivasini Bhuyan, Jagyaseni Bhuyan and Subarna Keshari Panda, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, Government Advocate P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Dates of Hearing : 13.05.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 18.05.2026 W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 JUDGMENT MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025: The writ petitioner craves for a declaration of requirement of presenting the bill or other claim for payment to the Block Development Officer under sub- rules (1) and (2) of Rule 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 without countersignature of the Chairman or the Vice- Chairperson, as the case may be, to be ultra vires the rule-making powers conferred by and/or under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959; and that enhancement of the pecuniary limit for signing the payment order from “two lakhs” rupees to “ten lakhs” rupees dispensing with requirement of countersignature of the Chairman of the Samiti or the Vice-Chairperson of the Samiti under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 by virtue of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025 vide Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department Draft Notification bearing No.20745-PR-PADM-MISC-0010/2023/PR&DW [SRO No.566/2025], dated 31.07.2025 published in the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary No.2385, dated 31.07.2015 to be beyond scope envisaged under the W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Heading “Panchayats” in Part-IX of the Constitution of India. 1.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners beseeching to invoke power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to grant the following relief(s): “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 as unconstitutional, ultra vires the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and violative of Part-IX of the Constitution of India. b) Quash and set aside the Notification dated 31.07.2025 enhancing the financial powers of the Block Development Officer/Executive Officer from rupees two lakhs to rupees ten lakhs, being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the constitutional scheme of local self-governance. c) Direct the opposite parties to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and ensure that financial and administrative decisions remain within the control of the elected Panchayat Samiti, particularly the Chairperson. d) Pass any other writ, order or direction as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound ever pray.” W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025: 2. After the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (Draft) being finalised, the petitioner perceiving legal complication that may arise in future, filed this writ petition. 2.1. Challenging the power conferred on the Block Development Officer to sign on the bills/payment orders not exceeding ten lakhs rupees (as amended by virtue of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025) without requiring signature of the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring declaring Notification dated 19.09.2025 under Annexure-1 issued by opposite party No.2 in amending Rule 16(1) of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 enhancing financial transaction of the Block Development W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Officer up to ten lakhs without approval of the Samiti as unconstitutional, ultra vires the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, and violative of Part IX of the Constitution of India. (b) Quash and set aside the Notification dated 19.09.2025 enhancing the financial powers of the Block Development Officer/Executive Officer from rupees two lakhs to rupees ten lakhs, being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the constitutional scheme of local self-governance. (c) Direct the opposite parties to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and ensure that financial and administrative decisions remain within the control of the elected Panchayat Samiti, particularly the Chairperson. (d) Pass any other writ, order or direction as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. The core issue set up by the petitioner revolves round excessive delegation of power upon the Block Development Officer without involving Chairman/Vice- Chairperson, elected representatives, under Rule 16(1) of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 as amended by virtue of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025, enhancing financial powers of the Block W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Development Officer from two lakhs to ten lakhs requiring no (counter)signature of Chairman/Vice- Chairperson of the Samiti on payment orders. 4. The facts adumbrated in latter writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025, are taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication of the present dispute inasmuch as the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit in the said case. 4.1. A consolidated writ petition dated 09.01.2026 has come to be filed by the petitioner pin pointing the dispute to the following: “The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, the elected Chairman of Niali Panchayat Samiti, assailing the constitutional validity of the Notification dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure-1) issued by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 whereby Rule 16(1) of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 has been amended to enhance the financial powers of the Block Development Officer up to ten lakhs rupees without consultation or countersignature of the elected Chairperson. The chronology of events reveals that while the 73rd Constitutional Amendment (with effect from 24.04.1993) constitutionally empowered Panchayati Raj Institutions as units of self-Government and the statutory framework under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 vested financial control in the elected Chairperson (Sections 20, 28 and 29), the State has consistently sought to dilute this democratic mandate by Notification dated 11.07.2025 and 31.07.2025. ***” W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 4.2. It is elaborated that by insertion of Part-IX under the Heading: “Panchayats” in the Constitution of India by virtue of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, which received the Assent of the President of India on 20.04.1993, whereby the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been treated to have constitutional status1. In W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025, validity of sub- rules (1) and (2) of Section 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 (“Accounting Rules” for brevity) have been questioned on the ground, by invoking the rule-making power conferred under Section 57 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 the State Government by dint of subordinate legislation could not take away or restrict the financial powers and sign the payment orders by the Chairman or the Vice- Chairman; on contrary the Block Development Officer/ 1 The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons concerning the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 reveals that: “Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been in existence for a long time, it has been observed that these institutions have not been able to acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people‟s bodies due to a number of reasons including absence of regular elections, prolonged supersessions, insufficient representation of weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources. 2. Article 40 of the Constitution which enshrines one of the Directive Principles of State Policy lays down that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self- Government. In the light of the experience in the last forty years and in view of the short-comings which have been observed, it is considered that there is an imperative need to enshrine in the Constitution certain basic and essential features of Panchayati Raj Institutions to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them. ***” W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Executive Officer by fixing and/or enhancing pecuniary limits could not have been given powers overriding the powers of the Chairman/Vice-Chairperson. 4.3. The petitioner, Chairman of Niali Panchayat Samiti, flagged the issue that the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 16 of the Accounting Rules having vested unbridled power on the Block Development Officer to sign and pass payment orders not exceeding amount of rupees ten lakhs (as amended by virtue of the Accounting Rules, 2025) from rupees two lakhs traversed beyond the pious responsibilities enshrined in Part-IX of the Constitution of India. 4.4. Questioning the validity of Section 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002, it is asserted that an attempt through subordinate legislation has been made by the Government of Odisha in the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department to curtail the financial and functional powers of the Chairman or the Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be, which poses threat to disturb the very fabric of the system envisioned in the dedicated chapter of the Constitution of India under the Heading “Panchayats” vide Part-IX. The functional autonomy could not be taken away by way of promulgating Rules putting unreasonable restrictions giving scope for the Executive W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Officer to misappropriate Panchayat Samiti Fund as constituted under Section 28 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959. 4.5. The Accounting Rules, 2002 having dispensed with requirement of signing payment orders for an amount less than ten lakhs rupees by the Chairman or the Vice- Chairperson, elected members, but vests the power on the Block Development Officer, an employee, the same is beyond the scope of the rule-making power conferred on the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department by virtue of Section 57 of Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act. 4.6. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Accounting Rules, 2002 the Collector has been conferred with power of supervision over the Chairman to direct the Block Development Officer to get the bills and payment orders signed by the Project Director, DRDA/Sub-Collector irrespective of amount involved, in case there occurs delay attributable to the Chairman. 4.7. The provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Accounting Rules are directly conflicts with Section 19 of the Odisha Panchayat Act read with Rule 3 of the Accounting Rules. Such a provision also hits the mandate of Article 243 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 5. It may be apposite to take note of relevant provisions of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959. 5.1. Provisions of Section 15A, Section 17 and Section 19 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 read as follows: “15-A.Appointment of Block Development Officer.— For every Block constituted under Section 15 there shall be a Block Development Officer to be appointed by Government: Provided that Government may nominate a member of employee of any non-official organisation engaged within the Block in development work, with the consent of such organisation and the Samiti constituted in respect of the Block, to exercise the powers, discharge the duties and perform the functions of the Block Development Officer and may in like manner modify or cancel such nomination. Explanation.— The person so nominated shall be deemed to be the Block Development Officer and an official member of the Samiti for all purposes of this Act. 17. Incorporation of Samiti.— Every Samiti shall by the name of the Block for which it is constituted be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and subject to any restriction and qualification imposed by or under this or any other enactment shall have power to acquire and hold property both movable and immovable and subject to any rules prescribed, W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 to transfer any such property held by it, to enter into contracts and to do all other things necessary, proper or expedient for the purposes of this Act may sue and be sued in its corporate name. 19. Chairman of the Samiti to be the Executive Authority.— (1) The executive authority of the Samiti shall vest in the Chairman and it shall be his duty to have the resolution of the Samiti implemented through the Executive Officer of the Samiti. (2) The Block Development Officer shall be the Executive Officer of the Samiti and subject to such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf, shall function under the control of the Chairman of the Samiti. (3) The Executive Officer of the Samiti shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed.” 6. The Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 are framed in exercise of power under Section 57 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, relevant provisions of the said Rules stand thus: “3. Panchayat Samiti Fund.— (1) The purpose to which the fund may be applied include all objects expressly declared obligatory or discretionary under the Act or Rules made thereunder and the general everything incidental thereto within the Block subject to this rules and such further rules or special orders as the W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Government may make or issue and shall be applicable to such purposes outside the Panchayat Samiti if the expenditure is authorised by the Act or specially sanctioned by the Government. (2) The Block Development Officer shall, subject to the control of Government, remain in charge of the fund shall subject to these rules administer the same in accordance with the decision of the Samiti. 16. (1) Every bill or other claim for payment shall be presented to the Block Development Officer who shall verify the same and if satisfied that such bill or other claim is in order he shall endorse on then a payment order which shall, be on the following line, namely: „Pay Rs....... (in words) (Rupees ......only)‟ Provided that the payment order shall be signed by the Block Development Officer where the amount does not exceed rupees 2[ten lakhs] and by both the Block Development Officer and the Chairman of the Samiti (In the absence of the Chairman, by the Vice-Chairperson of the Samiti), where the amount is in excess of the said amount: Provided further that the Block Development Officer or the Chairman, as the case may be, shall sign the payment order within seven days of receipt of the bill. 2 Substituted “two lakhs” vide the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025. W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 (2) Where the Collector is satisfied that countersignature by the Chairman in any case or group of cases has been unnecessarily delayed, he may direct DRDA/ Sub-Collector and pass the bill or claim for payment irrespective of the amount involved.” 7. On 18.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 this Court passed the following order: “1. The vires of Rule 16(1) and 16(2) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 is the subject matter involved in the instant writ petition. 2. It is contended that the aforesaid rule is not only violative of the constitutional mandate but also against the spirit of the parent Act which confers power to make rules and, therefore, to be declared as ultra vires. 3. Since the vires of a State Act/Statutory rules are the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition, let notice be issued to the learned Advocate General. 4. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the instant writ petition along with the notice in the office of the learned Advocate General in course of this week. 5. List this matter on 16th October, 2025.” 7.1. On 16.10.2025 in the said writ petition further order has been passed to the following effect: W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 “1. The vires of Rule 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 and the amendment having brought into the said rules by virtue of a Notification dated 19th September, 2025 is challenged in the instant writ petition on the ground of its constitutional validity as well as in contradiction with the object and the purpose of the Parent Act. 2. Our attention is drawn to the several provisions of the Act and the Rules including the Odisha General Clauses Act, 1937. In support of the contention that once the modalities and the procedure is provided in the statute for doing a particular thing, the things done de hors the same is liable to be declared invalid. 3. According to the respective Senior Counsels appearing for the writ petitioners of the different writ petitions, an attempt is made through a legislative fiat to undermine the authorities of the Panchayat Samiti or its Chairman and the autonomy which is envisioned in bringing a dedicated chapter in the Constitution of India has been impliedly taken away which disturbs the very fabric of the system. 4. Considering the gravity of the matter and the provisions sought to be challenged in the instant writ petitions, we direct the State to respond to the same in the form of an affidavit. 5. Let the counter affidavit be filed within three weeks from date. 6. List these matters on 13th November, 2025 along with W.P.(C) Nos.27724 and 28955 of 2025.” W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 7.2. On 06.01.2026 in W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 this Court has passed the following order: “1. In course of hearing of the writ petitions, it appears that the amendment sought to be carried out in the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 has already been published in the Official Gazette on 19th September, 2025 but the challenge is made in the instant writ petitions to the draft amendment rules. 2. The counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to amend the prayer in view of the aforementioned facts discerned in course of the hearing. 3. Such leave is granted. 4. It is also brought to our notice that several writ petitions involving the common and identical issue are filed and pending before this Court; list thereof has been furnished by Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Let those matters be also listed along with the instant writ petitions. 6. List these matters on 12th January, 2026 along with W.P.(C)Nos.34989, 30179 and 43097 of 2025.” 8. The opposite party No.2 (Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department) has filed counter affidavit dated 31.12.2025. 8.1. The counter affidavit reveals the following: W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 i. The provision enabling the Block Development Officers to sign and pass payment orders up to certain financial limits is a policy decision introduced to ensure administrative efficiency. ii. Rule l6 of the Accounting Rules as amended pertains to endorsement of payment orders on claims or bills presented to the Block Development Officer. The financial threshold has been set out for signature of the Block Development Officer for verification and on being satisfied signature is affixed on such bill to expedite the process to clear the amount in the payment orders below rupees ten lakhs and the countersignature of Chairman is required in respect of claims exceeding rupees ten lakhs. The Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025 has revised the financial threshold from rupees two lakhs to rupees ten lakhs as the said pecuniary limit has not suffered revision since 2007. The volume of bills beyond rupees two lakhs being increased in Panchayat Samitis due to fast flow of funds in almost all Schemes of Government, slow pace of clearance for want of countersignature of the Chairman had negative impact and affected the developmental works. Said amendment does not negate the spirit of representative democracy nor W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 does it take away the powers of the elected representatives. The revision of financial limit would facilitate the Chairman to devote more time to supervise the larger projects effectively, efficiently and timely. iii. The power of supervision and the power of inspection in respect of all works have not been taken away by the said Rules or amendment thereof. iv. The Accounting Rules, 2002 being promulgated in exercise of powers conferred on the competent Department, i.e., Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, by Section 57 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, Section 20 thereof provides for powers and functions of the Samiti wherein it has been expressly stipulated inter alia that “A Samiti shall, subject to such terms and conditions as Government may, from time to time by order specify, exercise the powers and perform the functions” and “The Chairman and every other non- official member of a Samiti shall, subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed, have power to supervise all works undertaken by the Samiti and all institutions under the control of the Samiti”. Thus, the Act itself contemplates and authorizes W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 the State Government to prescribe conditions, restrictions and modalities governing the exercise of the administrative and financial authority. v. While Section 28 deals with “Panchayat Samiti Fund”, Section 29 provides for “Income and expenditure of the Samiti”. vi. The apprehension of the petitioner that by dint of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025, the functional and financial autonomy of the Chairman or the Vice- Chairperson, as the case may be, has been restricted or the elected representatives are denuded to exercise such financial power is without comprehension. vii. Prior to promulgation of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025, objections were invited by way of Draft Notification dated 31.07.2025 and after consideration of objections received within the period stipulated, the Rules are framed and brought to force by publishing in the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary on 19.09.2025. viii. The Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025 vide W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department Notification No.26221-PR-PADM-MISC-0010/ 2023/PR&DW dated 19.09.2025 was laid before the Legislative Assembly on 01.12.2025 for a period of eight days during the Fifth Session of the 17th Odisha Legislative Assembly. The said Rules would be re-laid for a further period of six days in the next session of the Assembly. By operation of the provisions of the Act since the said Amendment Rules is yet to take the final shape, no cause of action arose for the petitioner to maintain the writ application and thus the same being premature is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Section 57(3) of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 stands as follows: “All the rules made under the Section shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible after they are made for a total period of fourteen days, which may be comprised in one or more sessions, and shall be subject to such modifications as the Assembly may make during the said period.” Provisions contained in Section 24 and Section 24A of the Odisha General Clauses Act, 19373 lay down 3 Section 24 and 24A of the Odisha General Clauses Act, 1937 reads as follows: “24. Provisions applicable to making of rules or by-laws after previous publication.— Where, by any Orissa Act, a power to make rules or by-laws is expressed to be given, subject to the condition of the rules or by-laws being made W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 the procedure for previous publication of draft Rules and rule of laying before the State Legislature. It is specified therein that if the State Legislature makes modifications during the laying process, the Rules thereafter shall have effect in such modified form, however such modification after previous publication, then the following provisions shall apply, namely: (1) the authority having power to make the rules or by-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules or by- laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby; (2) the publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires in such manner as the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government prescribes; (3) there shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration; (4) the authority having power to make the rules or by-laws, and, where the rules or by-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or concurrence of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the authority having power to make the roles or by-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified; (5) the publication in the Gazette of a rule or by-law purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or by-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or by- law has been duly made. 24-A. Provisions for laying of Rules before the State Legislature.— (1) All rules made by the State Government under an laying of Orissa Act shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid rules before the State Legislature for a total period of fourteen days the State Legislature. Which may be comprised in one or more sessions and if during the said period the State Legislature makes modifications, if any, therein, the rules shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form, so, however, that such modification shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the Rules. (2) Where any Central Act, in force in or applicable to the State of Orissa and relating to matters with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws for the State, confers power on the State Government to make Rules thereunder, then subject to any express provision to the contrary in such Act, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply to the rules made by the State Government in exercise of that power.” W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the Rules.4 8.2. Refuting the stance taken by the petitioner, the opposite parties have asserted that the impugned Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025, neither overrides nor does it contradict the parent statute namely the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, and hence, the challenge on the ground of excessive delegation or the said Rules being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. 9. During the course of hearing counsel appearing for the parties in unison brought to the notice the following admission and affirmation of the opposite parties in the counter affidavit: “15. The Petitioner‟s challenge on the ground of alleged administrative interference is misconceived and untenable, in view of the existing statutory safeguards under the Orissa Panchayat Samiti 4 See for laying down principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in: Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban Vrs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 386, Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. Vrs. The State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1149, Sanjay Gandhi Vrs. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 665, Quarry Owners‟ Association Vrs. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 655, Bank of India Vs. O.P. Swaranakar, AIR 2003 SC 858, The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, A.P. Vrs. Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally, (2003) 12 SCC 738, Veneet Agrawal Vrs. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 351, K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1, A.P. Ismail (Anwar Traders) Vrs. State of Kerala, (2006) 144 STC 476 (Ker). W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002. In this context, Rule 90 of the said Rules clearly provides as follows: „90. Check on payment.— The Chairman of a Samiti may stop any payment by the Block Development Officer for reasons to be recorded in writing and place the matter before the Samiti or the Standing Committee concerned.‟ This provision unequivocally empowers the Chairman of the Samiti to exercise control over payments proposed by the Block Development Officer. Therefore, the allegation of financial interference is contrary to the statutory scheme and is not tenable. The averment of the petitioner challenging the Notification dated 19.09.2025 issued by opposite party No.2 amending Rule 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 is also misconceived. The said amendment has been issued by the competent authority in exercise of the rule-making powers vested under the statute, following due procedure and in the larger interest of efficient financial management at the Block Level. The enhancement of the financial limit to rupees ten lakhs for handling by the Block Development Officer has been introduced to streamline administrative functioning and ensure timely execution of developmental works. The amendment does not, in any manner, curtail the statutory powers of the Chairman or the Panchayat Samiti. *** W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 18. That in reply to the averments made in Para-28 to Para-33 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the statute prescribes that the Executive Authority of the Samiti shall vest in the Chairman5 and it shall be his duty to have the resolution of the Samiti implemented through the Executive Officer of the Samiti and the Block Development Officer6 shall be the Executive Officer of the Samiti and subject to such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf, shall function under the control of the Chairman of the Samiti. A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the control of Samiti is qualified and not absolute. The petitioner has rightly averred that the Section 20A gives enough power to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Samiti in respect of inspection and supervision of all works undertaken by the Samiti. The impugned Amendment is aimed solely at enhancing monitoring of major projects and the Chairpersons continue to retain the power to supervise and inspect projects valued below rupees ten lakhs. Further, the Block Development Officer shall subject to the control of the Government remain in charge of the Panchayat Samiti Fund and shall subject to such Rules as may be prescribed administer the same in accordance with the decision of the Samiti. The statutory scheme itself makes it explicit that the powers of the Chairman and Samiti as well as that of BDO are qualified and expressly made subject to the Rules prescribed in this behalf. 5 Section 19: “Chairman of the Samiti to be the Executive authority” of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959. 6 Sub-section (2) ibid. provides that “The Block Development Officer shall be the Executive Officer of the Samiti and subject to such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf, shall function under-the control of the Chairman of the Samiti.” W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 That in light of such express provision, it is humbly submitted that the Act itself contemplates and authorizes the State Government to prescribe conditions, restrictions and modalities governing the exercise of the administrative and financial authority by formulating appropriate Rules. The impugned Amendment has been issued with the objective of administrative efficiency and ensuring timely completion of developmental works without in any manner curtailing the general supervisory and inspection powers of the elected Chairpersons in respect of all works. The increase in the countersignature limit, from rupees two lakhs to rupees ten lakhs was introduced to help the Chairpersons to focus on high value projects fbr timely completion to facilitate the rural population, since overseeing numerous smaller projects would compromise efficiency given their broader responsibilities in planning, supervision, and scheme implementation. The Rules merely establish procedural propriety and accountability mechanisms balanced with efficient and timely completion of works. Therefore, the averment that there is bureaucratic interference or gross mismatch between the Act and the Rules is unfounded, untenable, and liable to be rejected. *** 20. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 36 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that, the averment regarding a State Government Notification dated 11.07.2025 fixing exclusive responsibility upon the Chairperson to sign all cheques and bills of the Samiti is factually incorrect W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 and misconceived. No such notification has been issued by the State Government. The document dated 11.07.2025 referred to by the petitioner is only Letter No. 10664 issued by the Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha, which contains limited operational instructions to Treasuries for uniform processing of P.L. Cheques in IFMS in accordance with the then existing provisions of Subsidiary Rule 452 of the Odisha Treasury Code, Vol-I. The said letter neither creates any new statutory obligation nor fixes sole responsibility upon the Chairperson for financial transactions of the Samiti. Subsequently, Subsidiary Rule 452 of the Odisha Treasury Code, Vol-I has been amended by the Finance Department vide Notification No. 254651F, dated 04.09.2025 and Corrigendum No. 31156/F, dated 11.11.2025, which clearly provides that withdrawal of P.L. funds exceeding Rs.l0 lakhs shall be made only with joint signatures of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of the Samiti, as the case may be, along with the Block Development Officer. The statutory framework thus envisages joint authorization and collective responsibility. No other notification or instruction has been issued fixing exclusive liability upon the Chairperson. Hence, the averment to the contrary is erroneous and untenable in law. *** 24. That in reply to the averments made in Para 49 to paragraph 50 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that, the impugned Rules have been framed strictly within the scope of authority conferred by the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 and provides administrative procedures for disbursal of funds under the overall supervision of the Samiti and its Chairperson. The Act expressly authorizes the prescription of procedures goveming financial administration by the Executive Officer/ Block Development Officer. The impugned amendment does not confer any substantive financial decision making powers to the Block Development Officer as the overall supervision and inspection lies with the Chairperson as per the provisions of the Act. The impugned Rules are procedural in nature and aimed at ensuring efficiency, accountability, and timely completion of development works. The impugned Rules neither override the Act nor dilute the statutory role of the elected representatives; they merely provide an efficient administrative mechanism to give effect to administer the Funds in accordance with the decisions of the Samiti. Therefore, the impugned Rule does not create any new rights, obligations, or authority inconsistent with the parent statute and hence cannot be termed as excessive delegation. *** 26. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 52 and paragraph 53 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the amendment merely provides for the Block Development Officer to process routine bills in order to prevent administrative bottlenecks and delay due to increase in fund flows and developmental activities since 2007. The administrative hierarchy and checks under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, remain unchanged. The amendment does not authorize W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Block Development Officers to bypass the Samiti. It only removes the mandatory countersignature for small value works to avoid administrative delay. The Block Development Officer, as Executive Officer of the Samiti, acts under the overall control and supervision of the Chairperson. Audit mechanisms and fund utilization guidelines ensure transparency. Further, the Block Development Officer remains bound by the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, the Accounting Procedure Rules, overall supervision and inspection of the Chairperson, audit mechanisms and fund utilization guidelines. Therefore, there is no conferment of arbitrary authority; instead, the amendment introduces a rational administrative measure to enhance efficiency while retaining comprehensive statutory checks and balances and thus, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. *** 29. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph 59 and paragraph 60 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that, the statutory powers of supervision, inspection, and control vested in the Samiti and its Chairperson under Sections 20, 20A, and 28 remain fully intact. The impugned amendment neither transfers custody nor discretionary control of the Panchayat Samiti Fund to the Block Development Officer, it merely prescribe a procedure for passing bills to ensure timely completion of works, without affecting the substantive financial or supervisory authority of the elected body which continues to vest in the Chairperson. The Panchayat Samiti has been W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 statutorily empowered to exercise the powers of inspection and supervision over all the works undertaken by the Samiti and further, there are statutory audit mechanisms in place to ensure necessary checks and transparency. Therefore, there are adequate checks and balance in place for the purpose of accountability and transparency and a mere procedure prescribed for preventing administrative bottlenecks for timely execution of developmental works cannot be construed as removal of any constitutional safeguard or violation of the principle of responsibility of the executive to the elected body. Thus, the contentions of the Petitioner are liable to be rejected.” 10. Having drawn attention to such reply and assertion of the opposite parties it is perceived that the Government of Odisha through Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department admitted that provisions of Section 20A: “Powers and Functions of the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Samiti” of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 read with Rule 90 and Rule 917 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002, confer enough and enormous power to protect the financial irregularity and illegality. The Chairman vested with power of supervision. Said Act and the said Rules framed thereunder envisage that the Chairman/Vice- 7 Rule 91 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 stands thus: “Illegal payment.— The Chairman of the Samiti shall not authorize any payment in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders issued in this regard.” W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Chairperson shall have control over the Samiti and they have powers of supervision and inspection. The issued flagged by the petitioner, as conceded by the counsel for the petitioner, has been weathered away. 10.1. In view of such clear and categorical standpoint of the Government of Odisha spelt out through the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, and the petitioner having acceded to such admissions contained in the counter affidavit, no grievance pertaining to taking away the functional or the financial autonomy from the elected representatives (Chairman or the Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be) subsists. As agreed to by the counsels, this Court thus disposes of the writ petition. 10.2. It is the submission of the petitioner that in the event the Block Development Officer signs the payment orders/bills claimed with respect to amounts not exceeding the pecuniary limit stipulated in Rule 16 of the Accounting Rules, without the countersignature of Chairman/Vice-Chairman, the elected representatives, would not be in a position to perform their responsibility in a sensible manner. When the Legislature in its wisdom has bestowed the powers and responsibilities upon the Chairman to function independently and to get the works done by way of resolution through the Executive Officer (Block Development Officer) of the W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Blocks (Samiti), such power could not have been curtailed/cabined. Nonetheless, this Court feels it pertinent to have notice of Section 28 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, which reads as follows: “All moneys received by a Samiti shall constitute a fund called the „Panchayat Samiti Fund‟. The Fund shall vest in the Samiti and shall be applied for the purposes specified in this Act and for such other purposes and in such manner as may be prescribed.” Sub-section (2) of said Section 28 thereof being substituted by virtue of the Odisha Zilla Parishad (Amendment) Act, 1961, stipulated that “The Block Development Officer shall, subject to the control of the Government, remain in charge of the Panchayat Samiti Fund and shall subject to such rules as may be prescribed administer the same in accordance with the decision of the Samiti”. The petitioner referring to Section 52 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 19598, sought to agitate that the Block Development Officer, being employee of the Government of Odisha, if allowed to sign the payment orders without the countersignature of the Chairman, there would be scope for misappropriation. This Court 8 Section 52 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, read as follows: “52. Chairman, Vice-Chairman and employees to be public servants.— (1) The Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and the employees of the Samiti shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (2) The employees of the Samiti shall be Governed by the Odisha Government Servants‟ Conduct Rules, 1959.” W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 finds such apprehension is without foundation in view of clear stand of the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that the countersignature of the Chairman is dispensed with by virtue of Rule 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 with respect to payment orders/bills of claim for an amount not exceeding ten lakhs rupees to ensure timely execution, transparency, accountability and reduce the workload of Chairman. It is also candidly affirmed by the opposite parties that “the Block Development Officer remains bound by the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, the Accounting Procedure Rules, overall supervision and inspection of the Chairman, audit mechanism and fund utilisation guidelines”. Furthermore, Rule 90 and Rule 91 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules makes abundantly unambiguous that the Chairman is empowered to stop any payment made by the Block Development Officer and the Chairman of the Samiti shall not authorise any payment in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Since checks and balances are provided to safeguard the Panchayat Samiti Fund, such standpoint of the petitioner stands repelled. 11. Having diligently and punctiliously considered the grounds of attack against the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 Procedure Rules, 2002 and enhancement of pecuniary limit contained therein for signing the bills claimed/ payment orders by the Block Development Officer and dispensing with countersignature of the Chairman or the Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be, by virtue of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025, vis-a-vis the explanation and/or replies given by the Government of Odisha in the counter affidavit, this Court does not find invalidity in carrying out such amendment by way of promulgation of subordinate legislation, i.e., the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 as amended by the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025. As conceded by the parties, sufficient and enough power have been provided under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 to safeguard and protect the interest of citizens. The financial power has been well reserved for the elected representatives (Chairman/Vice-Chairperson). It cannot be gainsaid that dispensing with requirement of signing the payment orders/bills below ten lakhs rupees by the Chairman as contained in Section 16 of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002 would in any manner squeeze or take away/restrict the financial freedom or power. The Amendment Rules of W.P.(C) No.23206 of 2025 & W.P.(C) No.27234 of 2025 2025 does not affect the powers of Chairman as apprehended by the petitioner. 12. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of to the extent indicated above, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. I agree. (HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 18th May, 2026/Aswini/Bichi/Laxmikant Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT (SECY I/C) CUTTACK Signature Not Verified