Madras High Court
M. Karunanidhi vs I.M.Menon on 7 March, 2019
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2019
C O R A M:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.Nos.6364 and 6374 of 2019
W.M.P.Nos.7189, 7191, 7193, 7205 and 7206 of 2019
W.P.No.6364 of 2019
M. Karunanidhi ... Petitioner
v.
1. The Chief Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government
Finance Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat
Chenani 600 009.
3. The Principal Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Labour and Employment Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
4. The Principal Secretary to Government
http://www.judis.nic.in Government of Tamil Nadu
2
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
5. The Principal Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
6. The Principal Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Agriculture Government Department
Secretariat, Fort St George
Chennai 600 009.
7. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Women's Development Corporation
Mother Therasa Women's Complex
I Floor, Valluvar Kottam High Road
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
8. Union of India
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
rep. by its Secretary
New Delhi 110 001.
9. Union of India
Ministry of Rural Development
rep. by its Secretary
New Delhi 110 001.
10. Union of India
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
rep. by its Secretary
New Delhi 110 001.
11. Union of India
Ministry of Consumer Affairs
http://www.judis.nic.in Food and Public Distribution
3
Department of Food and Public Distribution
rep. by its Secretary
New Delhi 110 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for
records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 13/2/2019 and quash paras
2, 3 and 4 of the aforesaid G.O, G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 13/2/2019 issued
by the fourth respondent and G.O.Ms.No.686 dated 14/2/2019 issued by
the first respondent and direct the Government to adhere to
G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 9/1/2007 issued by fifth respondent and various
guidelines framed by eighth to eleventh respondents to identify the BPL
families including publishing of BPL families transparently in official
website of Government after hearing the objections regarding inclusion
and deletion before distributing one time financial assistance of
Rs.2,000/- to the families in below poverty line.
For petitioner ... Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Dhayanand
For Respondents 1 to 7 ... Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.Jayaprakash Narayan,
Government Pleader (I/C) and
Mr.E.Manoharan, Addl. Govt.Pleader
W.P.No.6374 of 2019
M.Murugesan ... Petitioner
v.
1. Union of India
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
Ministry of Statistics and Programme
rep. by its Secretary
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
4. The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
5. Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
6. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Corporation for Women's Development
Government of Tamil Nadu
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration that the scheme of
payment of Rs.2000/- as single time special financial assistance to the
families of Below Poverty Line (BPL) in the State of Tamil Nadu is
strictly only for the families of BPL and none others; consequently direct
the respondents 2 to 6 to strictly adhere to the guidelines framed in
G.O.(Ms).No.3, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAII)
Department, Dated 09.01.2007 issued by the 4th respondent in finalizing
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
the list of beneficiaries and make payment in an impartial manner only
after publishing the list of BPL families/beneficiaries of the scheme in
the notice boards of the concerned Municipal/Town Panchayat Office
and Ward Office and also in the official website www.tnpoverty.org, as
indicated in the said Government Order, for public view in a transparent
manner enabling the beneficiaries for their status/claims/objections.
For petitioner ... Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
for Mr.C.Sevlaraj
For Respondents 1 to 7 ... Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.Jayaprakash Narayan,
Government Pleader (I/C) and
Mr.E.Manoharan, Addl. Govt.Pleader
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J) Instant Public Interest Litigation (W.P.No.6364 of 2019) has been filed to quash paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 13/2/2019, G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 13/2/2019, issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai, fourth respondent in W.P.No.6364 of 2019 and G.O.Ms.No.686, dated 14/2/2019, issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai, first http://www.judis.nic.in respondent in W.P.No.6364 of 2019 and direct the Government to 6 adhere to G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 9/1/2007, issued by Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai, fifth respondent in W.P.No.6364 of 2019 and various guidelines framed by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Union of India; Ministry of Rural Development, Union of India; Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Union of India; and Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Union of India, respondents 8 to 11 in W.P.No.6364 of 2019, to identify the BPL families, including publishing of BPL families transparently in official website of the Government, after hearing the objections, regarding inclusion and deletion before distributing one time financial assistance of Rs.2,000/- to the families in below poverty line.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2019, claims that he is one of the beneficiaries, being a person, below the poverty line. He states that he is working as a labourer and his annual income is Rs.22,000/-. The petitioner avers in his writ petition that the concept of "Below Poverty Line" was introduced by the Central Government to be used as a Bench Mark to indicate the persons who are economically disadvantaged and to identify the individuals, http://www.judis.nic.in who are in need of Government 7 assistance. The petitioner has given statistics, showing the state wise percentage of population below poverty line, published by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The data for Tamil Nadu for the year 2011-12 reads as under:-
State/ Rural Urban Combined
Union
Territory
No. of % of Poverty No. of % of Poverty No. of % of
Persons persons line Persons Persons line Persons persons
(Thousands) (Thousands) (Thousands)
Tamil 5,923 15.83 880.00 2,340 6.54 937.00 8,263 11.28
Nadu
3. It is pertinent to note that the data of the year 2011-12 has been arrived at based when the per capita income in rural Tamil Nadu has been taken at Rs.820/- p.m., i.e., Rs.9,840/- p.a. and the per capita income for urban Tamil Nadu has been taken at Rs.937/- p.m., i.e., Rs.11,244/- p.a.
4. The petitioner would state that the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 9/1/2007, issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA II) Department, has given instructions to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration and Director of Town Panchayats for verification of the Below Poverty Line list or urban local bodies. The recommendations read as under:-
http://www.judis.nic.in “2. In the circumstances stated by the Commissioner 8 of Municipal Administration the Government accept the recommendations and issue the following instructions to the commissioner of Municipal Administration and Director of Town Panchayats for verification of the Below Poverty line list of the Urban Local Bodies:-
1. All Urban Local Bodies should publish their respective Below Poverty Line lists in the notice boards of the concerned Municipal / Town Panchayat Office. Ward Office for verification by the elected representatives / public for at least 15 days.
2. The representation received if any from the public or elected representatives for inclusion or deletion should be verified with the survey formats within 15 days. The services of community Organisers, Resident Community Volunteers (RCVs), Health Visitors and the Multipurpose Health Workers in the Urban Local Bodies are to be utilized for verification work.
3. For new inclusions if there is a need to fill up the survey format, it may be filled up. If there is no survey format in the ULB then it may he printed as it was done during 2003-2004.
4. any representation regarding deletion or wrong inclusion of families should be verified with the already filled up survey formats.
5. After Inclusion and deletion the final Below Poverty Line list should be published immediately and then it should be placed before the respective Councils. http://www.judis.nic.in
6. In the case of Below Poverty Line families who have 9 shifted their residential locations within the ULB limits necessary' corrections are to be done in the records maintained at the Wards.
7. New Below Poverty Line families shifted from other local bodies are to be incorporated after due and careful examination of connected records. In case of Below Poverty Line families who have shifted to other local bodies, their names should be deleted form the records of the Urban Local Bodies after due verification.
8. BPL families elevated to APL Level should be deleted from the Below Poverty Line list.
9. The APL families found in Below Poverty Line list should be deleted immediately.
10. The Survey formats of left out cases shall be verified critically by the Municipal Commissioners / Executive Officers of the Urban Local Bodies to ensure that in no case with a monthly per capita income of Rs.500.93 and below (as defined by the Planning Commission) is included.
11. The non-economic parameters prescribed in the guidelines for identification of Below Poverty Line families by the Government of India shall also be applied while examining.
12. All Urban Local bodies are requested to complete the verification and inclusion / deletion work within the stipulated period and the final survey list Is to be furnished to the commissioner of Municipal Administration / Director http://www.judis.nic.in of Town Panchayats no later than 15th of February, 2007.” 10
5. An erratum was issued to G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 9/1/2007, by way of G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 19/1/2007, which reads as under:-
"The existing instruction in point 10, in paragraph 2 of the said G.O., shall be read as follows:-
10. The survey formats of left out cases shall be verified critically by the Municipal Commissioners/Executive Officers of the Urban Local Bodies to ensure that no case with a monthly per capita income of Rs.500.93 and below (as defined by the Planning Commission) is excluded."
6. The petitioner would state that Union of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, prepared a state wise percentage of population below poverty line. The basis of the poverty line for the year 2011 - 12, has been extracted, supra. He would state that in the year 2013, the Reserve Bank of India, published below poverty line percentage with MRP consumption for the year 2011-12, as under:-
Tamil Nadu Rural ... 15.83%
Tamil Nadu Urban ... 6.54%
7. He would state that Reserve Bank of India is bringing out the details of persons, below Poverty Line (hereinafter referred to as BPL) http://www.judis.nic.in 11 regularly. He would state that the methodology adopted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, to arrive at the list of persons below poverty line, cannot be accepted.
8. The petitioner would state that on 3/1/2019, the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women / respondent No.7 herein, has issued a communication, bringing a scheme, called "Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana - National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY - NULM)". The Notification/publication reads as under:-
“The Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana - National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY - NULM) intends to reduce poverty and vulnerability of the urban poor households by enabling them to access gainful self-employment and skilled wage employment opportunities, resulting in an appreciable improvement in their livelihoods on a sustainable basis, through building strong grassroots level institutions of the poor. The scheme is being implemented from the year 2014- 15. DAY-NULM is a centrally sponsored scheme funded by both the Central and the State Governments in the ratio of 60 : 40.
The Components of the DAY-NULM are:
1. Social Mobilization and Institution Development (SM&ID).
2. Capacity Building and Training (CB&T). http://www.judis.nic.in
3. Employment through Skill Training and Placement 12 (EST&P).
4. Self Employment Programme (SEP).
5. Support to Urban Street Vendors (SUH).
6. Scheme of Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUSV), and an exclusive component, Innovation & Special Projects (I&SP)”
9. The petitioner would contend that the data collected by the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women, the seventh respondent herein is not in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 9/1/2007, which has given instructions to the Officers, as to how the data for identifying the people below poverty line should be collected. The petitioner states that the data has been collected under six heads, viz., a. very poor (BPL) b. poor c. Middle class d. Wealthy persons e. Physically challenged and f. weaker sections
10. According to the petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2019, the seventh respondent has uploaded some data pertaining to Madurai, collected through the Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) in Rural areas, showing the details of poor families. The petitioner also states http://www.judis.nic.in 13 that the data collected by the seventh respondent would show that these families have been identified and approved by the Gram Sabha between 2013 - 14. The petitioner would suggest that there was no process of deletion of beneficiaries as suggested in G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 9/1/2007. He would submit that the data is old and outdated.
11. He would state that the Hon'ble Chief Minister has made an announcement in the Assembly, stating that the State would give special financial assistance of a sum of Rs.2,000/-, to about 60 lakhs poor families living below the poverty line. Translated version of the statement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, as furnished by the petitioner, reads as under:-
“Announcement of Thiru Edapadi K. Palanisawamy on 11,02.2019 under Rule 110 of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture Department Hon'ble Speaker, An inclusive development is the only development for the State of Tamil Nadu. “Everyone should have all the benefits thereby eradicating deprivation’' - Having this in the mind the late Hon'ble Chief Minister Selvi.J.Jayalalitha implemented many of the schemes thereby the economic http://www.judis.nic.in development reaches every citizen of the state.14
To up keep the Poor and downtrodden people and to bring them to the path of upliftment, the Government which has been religiously following the Path laid by the Hon'ble Amma has designed most of the welfare schemes and implemented them with utmost care.
In most of the districts, the poor have been affected by the cyclone of Gaja and failure of the monsoon rains and the present drought condition, I am happy to announce that in view of this, the poor families living below the poverty line especially the agricultural labourers, Urban poor, Fire crackers workers, Fisher labourers, Handloom workers, Masons, Washer men, Potters, Clobbers, Handicrafts workers and all other labourers employed in various fields will be distributed a special financial assistance of Rs, 2000 from the Tamil Nadu State Funds.
Because of this announcement the 35 lakhs poor families living in the rural areas and 25 lakhs of families living in urban area will be benefited. So totally the 60 lakhs poor families living below the poverty line will receive this Rs.2000 special assistance. I am happy to inform this house that this Government have allocated Rs.1200 crores in the next financial year of 2018- 2019 for this Scheme.”
12. The petitioner would state that the said announcement was followed by G.O.Ms.No.19, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj department, dated 13/2/2019. For the distribution of one time special http://www.judis.nic.in 15 assistance to the poor families living in rural and urban areas, particularly, agricultural labourers and families of poor labourers engaged in various trades in Tamil Nadu. On the very same day, G.O.Ms.No.20, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 13/2/2019 was issued, laying down the guidelines for implementation of G.O.Ms.No.19. According to the petitioner, there is no proper identification of the beneficiaries under the scheme. Beneficiaries could only be the persons who are living below the poverty line and beneficiaries cannot be extended to include those who are above poverty line. According to the petitioner, tax payers money would be utilised in extending the benefit to families, who are not below the poverty line. The petitioner would allege that this would amount to abuse of Government funds for garnering votes, at the cost of state exchequer.
13. The petitioner would state that the beneficiaries under G.O.Ms.No.19 were only persons below poverty line but the base is being enlarged to poor families and this is evident from G.O.RT.No.686 Public (Special.B) Department, dated 14/2/2019, which states that special financial assistance of Rs.2,000/- would be given to poor families.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16
14. The petitioner would therefore, state that since the identification of the beneficiaries, who are entitled to the special assistance, under G.O.Ms.Nos.19 and 20, is not proper and therefore, the Government Orders must be quashed.
15. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2019, would contend that the petitioner is not against the scheme, but the petitioner is only against the methodology in identifying the beneficiaries under the scheme. He would submit that the instructions laid down under G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 9/1/2007 which lays down the method of identifying people below poverty line has not been followed. He would state that the data collected and compiled by the seventh respondent, cannot be relied on. He would state that G.O.Ms.No.3, specifically provided that the data collected should be placed before the local bodies and it requires constant revision. He would state that the material on record would disclose that the data collected is completely outdated. He would argue that the figure of 6,00,000 families who are entitled to the benefit of the special financial assistance has not been identified properly and in a scientific manner. He would argue that the data has been collected hurriedly.
http://www.judis.nic.in He would also contend that since the Government is 17 increasing the number of beneficiaries, including the poor families, the number of beneficiaries, now entitled would cross two crores. He would state that the Central Government have followed certain method to calculate persons below poverty line and therefore, Government of Tamil Nadu cannot deviate from the procedure. He would state that the Government of Tamil Nadu is now calling for particulars from people by sending questionnaires and calling for details regarding income, etc. He would state that everybody, including some advocates have received this questionnaire. He therefore, argued that the fact that questionnaires are being sent would show that the data has not been collected in a proper manner and the Government of Tamil Nadu have not identified the families who would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Orders.
16. Mr.P.Wilson would vehemently argue that the Government cannot expand the scope of the scheme, by including poor families and that the beneficiaries should be restricted only to those who are below poverty line. He would state that the screen shots in the website of the seventh respondent would show the details regarding number of very poor, number of poor, number of vulnerable, number of differently abled persons, being called for, which demonstrates that the http://www.judis.nic.in 18 Government is not restricting itself only to families below poverty line. He would therefore, argue that persons who are not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 13/2/2019, which was only meant for the people below poverty line, would be given the financial assistance and this would result in tax payers money spent on people, who are not eligible for the special financial assistance. He would also argue that since the beneficiaries have not yet been identified in a proper manner and in view of the fact that elections are forthcoming, the Government must abandon this scheme till the beneficiaries are not properly identified.
17. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing in W.P.No.6374 of 2019, would reiterate the submissions made by Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel.
18. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General would contend that the entire issue is covered by a judgment, dated 15/2/2019, of this Court, in W.P.No.4464 of 2009. He would say that all the contentions which have been raised in the instant writ petitions have been answered by this Court in W.P.No.4464 of 2019. Learned Advocate General would contend that it is not the seventh respondent which has http://www.judis.nic.in 19 collected the data. He would state that participatory identification of poor in the rural areas has been done by the Directorate of Rural Development and BPL survey in urban areas has been done by the Urban Local Bodies Department, connected with local bodies. He would contend that G.O.Ms.No.20 as filed in the typed set of papers in the writ petitions by the petitioners, is a manipulated Government Order. Learned Advocate General has produced the file. The file produced before us would show that G.O.Ms.No.20 and the guidelines were put up for approval only on 13/2/2019. It was put up by the Section Officer on 13/2/2019, then sent to the Deputy Secretary, the Special Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary and then finally approved by the Principal Secretary (MA & WS) on 13/2/2019.
19. G.O.Ms.No.20 and more particularly the guidelines filed by the petitioner would show that the document (guidelines) has been signed on 12/2/2019. The learned Advocate General would state that the G.O., as filed by the petitioner and the original G.O., are materially different. A perusal of the G.O.Ms. No.20 as submitted by the learned Advocate General and the G.O. Ms. No.20 as filed in the Typed set of papers, would show that one paragraph, after the list of the monitoring committee members, is missing in G.O. Ms. No.20, filed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 20 petitioner. There are also certain other discrepancies between the Government Order, filed by the petitioner and the G.O., submitted by the learned Advocate General. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2019, raised an objection that it is possible that the Government files were manipulated for the reason that the Government wanted to increase the base of the beneficiaries and include poor families rather than restricting the beneficiaries to persons below poverty line. We directed the learned Advocate General to verify as to whether the Government Order was sent to the Collectors and others, on the same date and if so, we asked for the copies of G.O.Ms.Nos.19 and 20 as sent to the Collectors and other authorities, immediately when G.O.Ms.Nos.19 and 20 were signed. The learned Advocate General produced copies of G.O.Ms.Nos.19 and 20 sent to the Corporation Commissioners, on 16/2/2019. A perusal of the same would show that contents of the original Government order, as shown to us by the learned Advocate General in the file, are the same, as G.O.Ms.No.20 sent to the Corporation Commissioners. This prima facie shows that the petitioner has filed a manipulated copy of G.O.Ms.No.20. The petitioner has to explain as to how how he has obtained the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21
20. The fact that there are discrepancies between the two documents i.e. one filed by the petitioner and one submitted by the learned Advocate General and the fact that prima facie, it appears that copy of the G.O. Ms. No.20 as filed by the petitioners, is manipulated, would not deter us from proceeding with the case. G.O. Ms. No.20 is only the guideline given for implementation of G.O. Ms. No.19. The question to be adjudicated in this case is whether the beneficiaries under G.O. Ms. No.19 are only those below poverty line or the beneficiaries, poor families of labourers, as identified by the Government. Both the above have been considered in G.O. Ms. No.19. We are of the view that the decision of the Government is for both persons below the poverty line and families of the poor labourers, especially agricultural labourers, Urban poor, Fire crackers workers, Fisher labourers, Handloom workers, Masons, Washer men, Potters, Clobbers, Handicrafts workers and all other labourers employed in various fields.
21. Translated version of G.O.19 dated 13/2/2019, G.O.Ms.No.20, with the guidelines dated 13/2/2019, issued by Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and G.O.Ms.No.686, dated 14.02.2019, issued by Public (Special.B) Department, as produced by the petitioner, http://www.judis.nic.in 22 read as under:-
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department - Notice under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by the Tamil Nadu Chief Ministers on 11.02.2019. The Special Financial Assistance of Rs.2,000/-
to those Rural and Urban poor who live below poverty line particularly agricultural labourers and others engaged in various fields - Guidance for Implementation - Orders Issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT G.O. Ms.No.19 Dated : 13.02.2019 Read The announcement of the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 11.02.2019 under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly ORDER An inclusive development is the only development for the State of Tamil Nadu. “Everyone should have all the benefits thereby eradicating deprivation” - Having this in the mind the late Hon’ble Chief Minister Selvi.J.Jayalalitha implemented many of the schemes thereby the economic development reaches every citizen of the state.
To up keep the Poor and downtrodden people and to bring them to the path of upliftment, the Government which has been religiously following the Path laid by the Hon’ble Amma has designed most of the welfare schemes and implemented them with utmost care.
In most of the districts, the poor have been affected by the http://www.judis.nic.in cyclone of Gaja and failure of the monsoon rains and the present 23 drought condition. I am happy to announce that in view of this, the poor families living below the poverty line especially the agricultural labourers, Urban poor, Fire crackers workers, Fisher labourers, Handloom workers, Masons, Washer men, Potters, Clobbers, Handicrafts workers and all other labourers employed in various fields will be distributed a special financial assistance of Rs.2000 from the Tamil Nadu State Funds.
Because of this announcement the 35 lakhs poor families living in the rural areas and 25 lakhs of families living in urban area will be benefited. So totally the 60 lakhs poor families living below the poverty line will receive this Rs, 2000 special financial assistance. I am happy to inform this house that this Government have allocated Rs. 1200 crores in the next financial year of 2018-2019 for this Scheme.
2. To implement the announcement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister the Project Director has sent a proposal for sanction of special financial announcement for all the poor families under the poverty eradication scheme after collecting all the datas throughout Tamilnadu to identify the poor families living under the poverty line in particular the agriculture labourers and other labourers engaged in various activities for sanction of Special Financial Assistance of Rs.2000 per family and allocation of Rs.1200 Crores in this regard.
3. Further he has requested to implement this scheme thorough the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Women Welfare Organisation and for the urban poor, it has to be implemented through the Commissioner of Municipal Administration as Coordinator and for the rural areas the DRD will be the coordinator.
4. To implement the proposal of the Managing Director, Tamil http://www.judis.nic.in Nadu Women Welfare Organisation as indicated in the para 2 and 3 24 above the Government after careful examination, after consolidating all the data particulars of all the poor families living below the poverty line especially the agricultural labourers and other labourers engaged in various fields, the Government orders that these labourers will be benefited by this order.
5. The following officials are appointed at the State Level to the Superintending committee.
1. Hans Raj Varma I.A.S Government Additional Chief Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Department
2. Harmandar Singh I.A.S Prinicpal Secretary Municipal Adminstration and Water Supply Department
3. Sunil Paliwal I.A.S Prinicpal Secretary Labour and Employment Department
4. Dr. Karthikeyan I.A.S Commisioner, Chennai Corporation
5. G. Prakash Commissioner Municipal Admin
6. S. Madhumathy Commissioner Food and Cooperation Department
7. K. Baskaran I.A.S Director of Rural Development
8. K. Palanisamy I.A.S Director of Town Panchayat
9. Dr. Chandrakala I.A.S Executive Director Tamil Nadu Women Welfare Organisation
10. A.R. Gladstone Pushparaj Additional Director Permanent Live System After Tsunami
6. To implement the above announcement a financial allocation of Rs. 500 Crores for the Urban areas and Rs. 700 Crores for Rural areas totalling Rs. 1200 Crores for the budget estimate of 2018-2019 has been allocated.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25 2235 Social Safety & Social Welfare 02, 200 Other Schemes State Expenditure for Special Financial Assistance Scheme for JL Rs.700.00 Crores families living below the poverty line - Rural Area 09 Assistance amount 09, etc. (Tha.Tho.Ku.2235 02 200 JL 0999 2235 Social Safety & Social Welfare 02, 200 Other Schemes State Expenditure for Special Rs.500.00 Crores Financial Assistance Scheme for JM families living below the poverty line - Urban Area 09 Assistance amount 09, etc. (Tha.Tho.Ku.2235 02 200 JM 0997) TOTAL Rs.1200.00 Crores
7. The amount released by this Scheme will be credited from the following account K Deposits and Advances (b) Depositys not Bearing Interest- 8443.00 - Civil Deposits- 800- Other Deposits- BP- Deposits of the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women Ltd.
DPC 8443 00 800 BP 000 I. Receipts
8. The amount released from the Para 6 above, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Women Welfare Organisation is authorised to receive the amount from both Commissioner Municipal Admin, Director of Rural Development. To implement this scheme, detailed guidelines will be issued separately.
This Order issues with the concurrence Finance Department from their U.O No. 24/Finance-DS(W&M)/2019, dated 13.02.2019 //By the order of Governor// Hans Raj Varma I.A.S Government Additional Chief Secretary” http://www.judis.nic.in 26 GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department - Notice under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by the Tamil Nadu Chief Ministers on 11.02.2019. The Special Financial Assistance Rs,2,000/- to those Rural and Urban poor who live below poverty line particularly agricultural labourers and others engaged in various fields - Guidance for Implementation - Orders Issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT G.O. Ms.20 13.02.2019 Read
1. G.O. Ms No, 19 Rural Development & Panchayatraj Department Dated 13.02.2019
2. Managing Director Tamil Nadu Womens’ Welfare Promotional Organisation. Lr No.401 /Pl/2019 dated 12.02,2019 ORDER:
In the G.O. read above orders were passed sanctioning Special Financial Assistance of Rs.2,000/- to the Rural & Urban poor especially those agricultural labourers and other workers engaged in various fields living under the poverty' line.
2. In the Reference 2nd cited the M.D. Tamil Nadu Womens’ Welfare Promotional Organisation sent the proposals along with guidelines for implementation for sanction of special financial http://www.judis.nic.in assistance Rs.2,000/- the rural and urban poor living under the poverty 27 line.
3. The Government after carefully examining the proposal sent by the Managing Director Tamil Nadu Womens’ Welfare Promotional Organisation orders that the detailed guidelines for the implementation of the Special Financial Assistant of Rs.2000 to the Rural and Urban poor especially those agricultural labourers and other workers engaged in various fields living under the Poverty line.
I /By order of the Governor// Hans Raj Varma Government Additional Chief Secretary” GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Monitoring Officers - Appointment of Officers to supervise and monitor the effective implementation of distribution of One Time Special Financial Assistance of Rs.2,000/- to the poor families living in Rural and Urban areas in Tamil Nadu - Orders - Issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC (SPECIAL.B) DEPARTMENT G.O.Rt.No.686 Dated: 14.02.2019 Vilambi, Maasi-02, Thiruvallurvar Anadu-2050 Read:
G.O.Ms.No.19, Rural Development and Panchayat (CGS-3) Department, dated 13.02.2009.
order:
http://www.judis.nic.in In the reference read above, orders have been issued sanctioning 28 distribution of One Time Special Financial Assistance of Rs. 2,000/- to the poor families living in Rural and Urban areas In Tamil Nadu during the year 2019 which was announced by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the floor of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 11.02.2019 under Rule 110.
2. Accordingly, the Government direct to appoint the officers enclosed in the Annexure as Monitoring Officers to supervise and monitor the effective implementation of distribution of One Time Special Financial Assistance of Rs.2,000/- to the poor families living in Rural and Urban areas in Tamil Nadu. The same Monitoring Officers will also monitor the implementation of Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) Scheme in their allotted districts.
3. The Monitoring officers shall report the progress to the Chief Secretary to Government through Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department / Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture Government respectively.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) GIRIJA VAIDYANATHAN CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT To The Officers concerned The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.”
22. Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel would contend that G.O.Ms.No.686, actually shows that the beneficiaries are sought to be http://www.judis.nic.in 29 increased. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, who has issued the G.O., has expanded the scope of the special assistance to poor families also, whereas G.O. Ms. No.19, was issued only to the people below poverty line.
23. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Advocate General that G.O.Ms.No.686, was issued by the Public Department, because civil servants, particularly, IAS officers have to be appraised for monitoring the implementation of the scheme and the word "poor" mentioned, cannot be taken advantage. Besides the scheme as framed by the Rural Development and Panchayat Department, cannot be altered by Public Department.
24. Reading of G.O.Ms.No.686, as extracted supra, would show that the said G.O., only deals with the appointment of Officers to supervise and monitor the effective implementation of the distribution of one time special financial assistance of Rs.2,000/- to the poor families. G.O., also categorically states that it has been issued only for implementation of G.O.Ms.No.19. It cannot be therefore, said that G.O.Ms.No.686 was oriented to expand the number of beneficiaries. In the light of the above, we cannot accept the argument of the http://www.judis.nic.in 30 petitioners.
25. The contention of Mr.Wilson that only respondent No.7 was involved in the collection of data also cannot be accepted, in view of the note that was submitted showing the procedure as to how the identification of the beneficiaries was followed. This note, duly signed by the Managing Director of the seventh respondent, was submitted by the learned Advocate General, during the hearing of W.P.No.4464 of 2019. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the instructions given to the learned Advocate General. The said note describes the procedure adopted in identifying the beneficiaries and we do not find any irregularity in the procedure adopted by the State.
26. The contention of Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2019, that only persons below poverty line alone are entitled to the benefit of the special assistance scheme cannot be accepted. The State Government apart from identifying the rural and urban poor had also taken into account persons registered with the Tamil Nadu Welfare Board and 16 other Boards like Tamil Nadu Construction Labour Welfare Board, Tamil Nadu manual Labourers Social Welfare Board, http://www.judis.nic.in Tamil Nadu Washermen 31 Welfare Board, Tamil Nadu Hair Dressers Welfare Board, etc. Even a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.19 would also show that the scheme was not limited to people below poverty line. It was meant to be extended to poor families, who had been identified in the PIP process in rural areas. At this juncture, it it worthwhile to extract the relevant portions from the order made in W.P.No.4464 of 2019, dated 15.02.2019:-
13.Details of the identification, in rural and urban areas labourers registered under various welfare boards, the procedure, as to how Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) is done, are extracted hereunder :
"Brief Note on the Poor families identified in Tamil Nadu for various scheme benefits Poor families in rural and urban areas have been identified in Tamil Nadu over a period of time for implementation of various welfare programmes as given below:
1. Rural Areas: Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) under Rural Livelihood Programmes
2. Urban Areas: BPL Survey List
3. Labourers registered under various Welfare Boards 1 . Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) in Rural Areas Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) process was conducted in Tamil Nadu in 31 rural Districts covering all the 385 Blocks. Under the World Bank assisted Tamil Nadu Pudhu Vaazhvu Project (TNPVP) from 2006-07 and 2011- http://www.judis.nic.in 12, this PIP process was conducted in 120 Blocks and 32 subsequently under the Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelihoods Mission (TNSRLM) it was conducted in 265 Blocks between 2012-13 to 2014-15 to identify the rural poor households. Details of PIP process is given in the table.
• The PIP process involved the Participatory Rural Appraisal tool and techniques such as transect walk, Social mapping, Wealth ranking and triangulation in order to ensure that no poor family is left out in that village. • PIP was a household exercise conducted in all habitations by the community itself to identify Very Poor, Poor, Differently abled and Vulnerable in all the Village Panchayats.
• Very Poor and Poor Families were identified based on the following criteria:
Very Poor families:
· Families which do not have housing facilities · Kutcha house with thatched roof and mud walls and with only one room.
· Families with no Male Breadwinners aged between 16-59 · Women Headed Households · Either landless or less than one acre land · Families became poor due to usury · Cattle less family, Freed bonded labourers · Families that had unnatural deaths due to natural calamities, accident, etc. ·Annual income is less than Rs. 24,000/- http://www.judis.nic.in Poor families:33
· Families having annual income between Rs. 24,000– Rs.50,000 · Families living in IAY / PMAY houses and in own tiled house.
· Families having two income earning members · Families having assets like cattle, poultry · Families having one acre wet land or two acre dry land · Families earning income through small income generating activities (weaving, pottery, etc.) · Families doing seasonal petty trades · Families involving in agriculture in leased lands. · The PIP list was displayed in all prominent places in all the habitations to receive claims and objections if any and final PIP list was approved by the Grama Sabha. Thus 32.13 lakh families have already been identified as Very Poor and Poor families in rural areas by following the above process.
2 . The BPL Survey in Urban Areas In the Urban Areas, 23.54 Lakh BPL Households have been identified in 664 urban local bodies consisting of Corporations, Municipalities and Town Panchayats.
The methodology adopted under BPL is
1. House to House survey in urban areas was done and their living conditions such as Thatched earthen floor, open defecation, No water supply for 500 Yards, illiteracy, unskilled casual labourer, working children not attending school were taken as the highest priority http://www.judis.nic.in criteria for BPL inclusion.34
2. Identifying women headed households headed by widows, divorcees, single women, and Sole women earners who eke out their livelihoods.
3. Vulnerability focus on sectors like Production, services and business was given to identify the poor people.
4. The BPL Survey was done in all ULBs in the year as per the guidelines of SJSRY. In the year 2011, under JnNURM, USHA Survey was done exclusively in slums in 96 towns having population of 50,000 and above. Further, during the year 2015, the USHA survey was carried out in the remaining urban local bodies while making the same exercise covering survey on whole town basis in the already surveyed 96 towns.
5. These BPL data were integrated in 2015.
6. Hence, the final integrated data for corporations, Municipalities and Town Panchayats for BPL families was obtained with the identification of 23.54 Lakh Households.
3. Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board and 16 other Boards In Tamil Nadu there are 17 Welfare Boards that help to register the various labour oriented poor people and extend the Government assistance to them. As per the report received from the Labour Welfare Department, the workers in different occupations have registered themselves in various Boards, viz., Tamil Nadu Construction Labourers Welfare Board, Tamil Nadu Manual Labourers Social Welfare Board, TN Washermen http://www.judis.nic.in Welfare Board, TN Hair Dressers Welfare Board, Boards 35 for the Welfare of Tailors, Handicrafts, Palm Tree Climbers, Handlooms, Leather Products Makers, Artists, Goldsmiths, Potters, Housekeepers, Powerloom Workers, Street Vendors, Drivers and Cooks.
In these Welfare Boards as on 31, January 2019, 72.44 lakh persons have registered for seeking benefits.
Apart from this, Department of Fisheries maintains the database of around 1.64 lakh Marine Fisherman poor families who are being assisted by the Department.
The Government proposes to provide a special financial assistance of Rs. 2,000 to the families identified through rural PIP and urban BPL list for their livelihoods security. Those labourers registered through various Labour Welfare Boards but not covered under the above two lists will also be provided assistance after identifying and excluding duplications by integrating the available database. Because, the PIP and BPL data are household based and the data of Labour Welfare Boards are based on individuals. Additional information like Aadhaar Number, Smart Card Number (Ration 15 Card), Bank accounts and Mobile numbers are now being collected from these identified families to avoid duplication and validate the list and to release the assistance of the Government directly to their respective bank accounts through electronic mode of transfer. Around 55,000 enumerators are collecting these additional data both in rural and urban areas. http://www.judis.nic.in NITI Aayog Publications based on various Committee 36 Reports like Suresh D. Tendulkar Committee, NSSO Data, RBI Reports have arrived at the Poverty Estimates based on certain criteria like Consumption and Expenditure pattern of the sample households, etc. Therefore, the details of Poor families have been gathered by the Government agencies through various surveys designed for implementing the welfare programmes and livelihood programmes for the poor. Hence the Government proposes to utilise only those household wise data, already made available through survey done with community participation in rural areas and with the designed parameters in urban areas carried out from time to time. 4.Justification in the announcement for the special financial assistance of Rs.2000/- to 60 lakh poor households:
The Gaja cyclone which badly hit Tamil Nadu on the early hours of 16 th November, 2018 caused much havoc and untold sufferings to the people in 12 districts of Tamil Nadu. The G.O.(Ms).No. 481, Revenue & Disaster Management Department (DM-II Section), dated: 10.12.2018 has notified the districts of Nagapattinam, Tiruvarur, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai and Dindigul as cyclone affected districts. Further, Trichy, Karur, Cuddalore, Madurai, Sivagangai, Theni, Ramanathapuram were also declared as affected districts.
In the same year of 2018 both the monsoons, i.e., Southwest and North East – were not up to the normal http://www.judis.nic.in rainfall and most of the districts received poor rainfall. In 37 the meeting conducted by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management Department with the heads of urban and rural local bodies and TWAD Board on 21.01.2019, it has been mentioned that there was a deficit rainfall in Dharmapuri (-48%), Krishnagiri (-40%), Chennai (-43%), Karur (-28%), Salem (-29%), Vellore (-36%), Trichy (-38%), Perambalur (-38%), Tiruvallur (-36%), Kancheepuram (-32%), Madurai (-21%), Tiruvannamalai (-24%), Namakkal (-18%), Pudukkottai (-22%), Thanjavur (-31%), Nagapattinam (-23%), Villupuram (-28%), Cuddalore (-20%), Ramanathapuram (-20%), Ariyalur (-24%) and Tiruvarur (-17%). It is understandable that in all these districts agriculture is affected causing sufferings to the people.
Sd/-
Managing Director Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women Chennai - 34"
14.Petitioner, has filed the instant writ petition, solely based on the census and the data of the NITI Aayog for the years 2009-10 and 2011-12. Perusal of the data enclosed in the typed set of papers shows that to arrive at the number and percentage of population below poverty line, the experts have taken note of MRP consumption, as a factor. Insofar as Tamil Nadu is concerned, in 2009-10, the number and percentage of persons below poverty line was 7830 (thousands) in rural http://www.judis.nic.in areas and in urban areas, it was 4350 (thousands), 38 combined it was 12180 (thousands). Similarly, in 2011-12, the figure was, 5923 (thousands) in rural areas 2340 (thousands) in urban areas, combined it was 8263 (thousands). According to the petitioner, as per the data in NITI Aayog report, even assuming that if a family has three persons, the total number of families below poverty line in Tamil Nadu, would be less than 60 lakhs.
15.Perusal of the data of NITI Aayog report shows that the amount taken into consideration for declaring a person as below poverty line in rural areas and urban areas within same State is different, i.e., rural and urban, as the case may be. If the factors taken into account, by the experts who submitted NITI Aayog, amount to be applied and enumeration to be done, then the number of persons, or families, below poverty line would be more. Whereas, in the case on hand, after a detailed study, Government of Tamil Nadu, have taken the annual income of the family between Rs.24,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as a base, to declare a family as below poverty line. The method adopted by the State Government to arrive at a decision, as to whether, a family is below poverty line, at any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be irrational and not based on scientific and logical reason.
16.Though placing reliance on Supreme Court http://www.judis.nic.in judgment in R.S.MAKASHI AND OTHERS Vs I.M.MENON 39 AND OTHERS [(1982)1 SCC 379], party in person contended that the recent announcement is made only with an intend to secure votes, we are not inclined to accept the said contentions. Government have considered that Gaja cyclone which hit Tamil Nadu, has caused havoc and untold sufferings to the people in 12 Districts and issued G.O.(Ms).No.481, Revenue & Disaster Management Department (DM-II Section), dated 10.12.2018. Government have taken note of the failure in monsoon and consequently drought, and therefore, thought it fit to provide "Special Financial Assistance" as a one time measure.
17.Contention of the petitioner that the decision to provide "Special Financial Assistance" is political and to secure votes cannot be accepted. Several thousands of families are affected. There was loss of life and property. Considering the reasons for providing "Special Financial Assistance" to the poor families, enumerated, decision of the Government cannot be said as arbitrary, on the other hand, the Government should come forward to assist the poor families, which in the case on hand, has been done as one time measure, "Special Financial Assistance.
21.Going through the material on record, and the decisions cited supra, policy decision of the Government http://www.judis.nic.in in providing, "Special Financial Assistance", for the 40 reasons stated, cannot be said to be arbitrary irrational, and against public interest.”
27. The criteria to identify these families has been extracted in paragraph No.13 in the judgment dated 15/2/2019 in W.P.No.4464 of 2019. The criteria to identify BPL families in urban areas has also been extracted in the same order. The portion of G.O.Ms.No.19 which states that the scheme was also meant for poor people, would read as under:-
“2. kh©òäF Kjyik¢r® mt®fsJ Ϫj m¿é¥Ãid brašgL¤J« neh¡»š ViH vëa FL«g§fS¡fhd Áw¥ò ãÂÍjé¤ Â£l« v‹w bgaçš gšntW tWik xê¥ò¤ £l§fë‹ Ñœ, jäœehL KGtJ« fz¡bfL¥ò el¤j¥g£L f©l¿a¥g£LŸs »uhk k‰W« ef®¥òu§fëš tWik¡ nfh£o‰F¡ Ñœ thG« ViH FL«g§fS¡F F¿¥ghf étrha¤ bjhêyhs®fŸ k‰W« gšntW bjhêšfëš <Lg£L¡ bfh©oU¡»w ViH¤ bjhêyhs® k‰W« gšntW bjhêšfëš cjéahf FL«g¤Â‰F jyh 2000 %ghŒ Åj« tH§f %.1200 nfho ã xJ¡Ñ£oš brašgL¤j x¥òjš më¤J cça MizfŸ tH§FkhW jäœehL kfë® nk«gh£L fHf¤Â‹ nkyh©ik Ïa¡Fe® muir¡ nfhçÍŸsh®.” The above contents, translated by this Court, is extracted hereunder:
"2. For implementing the announcement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, under the poverty alleviation and special financial assistance schemes throughout Tamil Nadu, survey has been conducted and persons, identified as below poverty http://www.judis.nic.in 41 line, in particular, agricultural labourers and poor labourers, in various occupations and to assist the labourers in their occupations, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women, has requested the Government to accord sanction and necessary orders, by giving Rs.2,000/- under Rs.1200/- crore fund allocation, towards the implementation of the scheme"
28. A perusal of the said portion would show that the scheme was not restricted only to people below poverty line and it is also extended to the poor families of labourers engaged in various trades, morefully explained in the note submitted in W.P.No.4464 of 2019, dated 15.02.2019, extracted supra.
29. Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the fact that fresh details are being collected by the government for identification of the beneficiaries would show that the exercise done by the Government is not proper and more persons are being sought to be included only due to the forthcoming elections. It is the submission of the learned Advocate General that questionnaire is issued to collect particulars for correlating with the data, already available with the department, and to verify the same. He submitted that there would be http://www.judis.nic.in cases of death, migration, persons would have now become below 42 poverty line, due to some reasons or the other and continue as below poverty line and some may not still and some excluded. After a thorough verification of all the collected particulars, a proper list would be published in the Grama Sabha and the whole exercise would be done in a transparent manner. He further submitted that the allocation of funds is Rs.1,200 Crores, meant for 60 Lakhs people. There could be some increase marginal, depending upon the exclusion or inclusion, as the case may be and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be two crores of people. He further submitted that the entire issue is covered by the order made in W.P.No.4464 of 2019, dated 15.02.2019. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned Advocate General.
30. Reliance placed by Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.6364 of 2019, on the data published by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, to show as to how many persons in Tamil Nadu would be below the poverty line, to substantiate his contention that the Government could not adopt any other method or basis to identify the beneficiaries also cannot be accepted. It is for the State Government to decide as to who should be the beneficiaries under a particular scheme. Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority over the policy of the State, unless the policy is so http://www.judis.nic.in 43 arbitrary that it should be struck down. Even the data as produced by the petitioner is considered, there would be about 8263000 people below poverty line if the rural income is taken as Rs.880/- per month and the urban income is taken as Rs.937/- per month. The beneficiaries in the present scheme are poor families. Even if we assume that a family consists of four members in a family, then, this would come to about 20,00,000 families. The State Government has taken a different criteria and as stated earlier, Court cannot sit on the policy of the State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. union of India reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333, observed as follows:-
“88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, http://www.judis.nic.in 44 but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court.
89. The decision to disinvest and the implementation thereof is purely an administrative decision relating to the economic policy of the State and challenge to the same at the instance of a busybody cannot fall within the parameters of public interest litigation.”
31. In Federation of Railway Officers Vs. Union of India, reported in 2003 (4) SCC 289, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with http://www.judis.nic.in 45 the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere with such matters.”
32. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in {2000 (10) SCC – 664}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court's jurisdiction.
233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power, the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Courts must therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for http://www.judis.nic.in this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court 46 that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere.
When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law.
234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation, the Court should not refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not http://www.judis.nic.in the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh 47 and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.”
33. Going through the material on record, submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Advocate General that the most of the issues raised in the present writ petitions are covered in the order in W.P.No.4464 of 2019, dated 15.02.2019. Verification of the particulars already available and cross checked with the Aadhar details and the details contained in the questionnaire, be done thoroughly and displayed in the Grama Sabha and such other places, as required. Transparency be maintained. Ineligible persons be excluded.
34. Since there is prima facie found that copy of the G.O. Ms. No.20 appears to be manipulated, we hereby issue notice to the petitioners in W.P.No.6364 & 6374 of 2019, to file an affidavit explaining as to how he has obtained the copy of the Government Orders filed, in the Typed set of papers, returnable in two weeks.
35. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. http://www.judis.nic.in 48
36. Registry is directed to post these matters on 21.03.2019.
(S.M.K.,J.) (S.P.,J.)
07/03/2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
mvs/pkn.
S.MANIKUMAR, J
AND
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel submitted that affidavits of the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.6364 and 6374 of 2019, have been filed, explaining as to how they have obtained the same.
2. We have directed the Registry to post the matter, on 21/3/2019. Government to respond.
(S.M.K.,J.) (S.P.,J.) 07/03/2019 mvs Note: Issue order copy today.
http://www.judis.nic.in 49 To
1. The Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government Finance Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chenani 600 009.
3. The Principal Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.
4. The Principal Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.
5. The Principal Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.
6. The Principal Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Agriculture Government Department Secretariat Fort St George Chennai 600 009.
http://www.judis.nic.in 50
7. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Women's Development Corporation Mother Therasa Women's Complex I Floor, Valluvar Kottam High Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034.
8. The Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Union of India, New Delhi 110 001.
9. The Secretary Ministry of Rural Development Union of India New Delhi 110 001.
10. The Secretary Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Union of India New Delhi 110 001.
11. The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department of Food and Public Distribution Union of India New Delhi 110 001.
12. The Secretary Ministry of Statistics and Programme Union of India New Delhi 110 001.
13. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
14. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Corporation for Women's Development Government of Tamil Nadu Nungambakkam http://www.judis.nic.in Chennai 600 034. 51
S.MANIKUMAR, J AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J mvs/pkn.
W.P.Nos.6364 and 6374 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.7189, 7191, 7193, 7205 and 7206 of 2019 07/03/2019 http://www.judis.nic.in