Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The Respondents (State) have filed return pleading that the impugned amendments have been made with reference to lawful authority in terms of Section 355 read with Section 338 of the Act and that those provisions of the Act provide ample power to make the amendment impugned in these writ petitions. The impugned amendment is supported by the Respondents to be for the benefit of public at large, having in view the grave financial and administrative irregularities which are seen to have occurred in different districts of the State of Chhattisgarh. Annexure-R/1 (collectively) is placed on record along with the return to demonstrate various instances of discrepancies in disbursement of the payments, irregularities and excess payments and also unnecessary withholding of due payments. The State has further contended that the impugned amendment is rational, and in substance, aimed to be beneficial for the effective administration and functioning of the Municipal Institutions. It is further contended that the impugned amendment aids clarifying and defining the role and duties as between the President of Municipal Council/ Nagar Panchayat and the Chief Municipal Officer and to create transparent and accountable mechanism for better administration. It is also contended that the impugned amendment does not in any manner impair the constitutional provisions including the policy concepts ingrained among the Directive Principles. It is specifically contended that the impugned amendment does not denude the elected representatives of their rights to participate in financial matters and the amendment brought in is only to appropriately regulate the making of payments and to ensure better financial accountability without abusing the power of disbursement or drawl.

11. Section 104 of the Act enumerates the funds which are to be credited to the Municipal Fund.

12. The Chhattisgarh Municipal Accounts Rules, 1971; for short 'the Rules', were made in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) and clauses (xi), (xxxi), (xxxiv) and (xxxv) of Sub-section (2) of Section 355 read with Section 113 (omitted as per MP Act 20 of 1998) and Sub-section (2) of Section 338 of the Act. Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 81 and Sub- rule (2) of Rule 90 of the Rules as they stood before the impugned amendment, read as follows:

13. The impugned amendment made in exercise of power conferred by Section 355 read with Section 338 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 is to the following effect:

"In the said rule:-
(1) In sub-rule (1) of rule 81, for the words "Chief Municipal Officer with his opinion submit the document to the competent authority for orders for payment", the words "Chief Municipal Officer shall be competent to issue payment orders on each bill or voucher" shall be substituted.

18. The impugned amendment to the delegated legislation is made in exercise of rule making power. Such exercise of power has been done in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The power to make rules under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 355 of the Act includes all powers which would enable making of rules generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act and also, in particular, enumerated matters falling under Sub-section (2) of Section 355 of the Act. The powers under that Section are in addition to any power specifically conferred by the Act. Section 338 (2) of the Act provides rule making power relating to execution of works. With such rule making power being available, the reference made on behalf of the Petitioners to decision in Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union Vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 327, does not appeal to us in the context of the case in hand. Similar is the situation regarding the decisions in Global Energy Limited and Another Vs. Central electricity Regulatory Commission, (2009) 15 SCC 570 and Union of India and Others Vs. S. Srinivasan, (2012) 7 SCC 683.