CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has upheld the state government’s decision to enhance the financial powers of block development officers (BDOs), ruling that the amendment allowing them to sign bills and payment orders up to Rs 10 lakh without countersignature of panchayat samiti chairpersons does not dilute the authority of elected representatives.
A two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman gave the ruling on Monday, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Umesh Chandra Behera, chairman of Niali block panchayat samiti, challenging the validity of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2025.
The petition, filed on August 18, 2025, sought quashing of the notification by which the state government enhanced the BDOs’ financial powers from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 10 lakh under Rule 16(1) of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Accounting Procedure Rules, 2002. The petitioner alleged that the amendment was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the constitutional scheme of local self-governance.
Behera contended that the amendment undermined the spirit of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment and diluted the statutory authority vested in elected chairpersons under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959. He argued that dispensing with the countersignature of the chairman or vice-chairman on payment orders up to Rs 10 lakh would prevent elected representatives from discharging their responsibilities effectively.
“It is the submission of the petitioner that in the event the BDO 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,” the court recorded in the May 18 judgement.
Rejecting the challenge, the bench held that the apprehensions raised by the petitioner were without foundation. The court accepted the state government’s stand that the amendment was intended to ensure timely execution, transparency, accountability and reduce the workload of chairman.
The bench further observed that adequate safeguards remained in place under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and the Accounting Procedure Rules. Referring to Rules 90 and 91, the court said the chairman retained authority to stop payments made by the BDO and could not authorise payments contrary to statutory provisions.
