Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The case of the petitioner in E.P.No.2/2009 is that the acceptance of the nomination paper of the returned candidate (the respondent herein) is in violation of Section 9A of the R.P.Act, as the provisions contained in Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the R.P.Act are attracted to the respondent. The respondent was a Member of Parliament between 2004-2009. As the Member of Parliament, he recommended the construction of a large number of bus-shelters under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). He recommended that the Principal, GMIT be the implementing authority for the construction work of these bus-shelters. The Principal, GMIT is only an employee of the respondent. The GMIT is being run by Srishyla Educational Trust of which the respondent is the Chairman. The Principal is thus an employee of the respondent. The Principal is an agent and benamidhar of the respondent. Violating the guidelines of MPLADS, the respondent has chosen the implementing authority only to reap the benefits from the contract. The entrustment of the work to the Principal, GMIT is without calling for the tenders and is therefore in contravention of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The respondent also got the cost of the construction of the bus-shelters revised upward with a view to benefit himself. The Deputy Commissioner was acting blindly and at the behest of the respondent. The cost of the works executed amounting to `77.50 lakhs have been siphoned off into the funds of the said Trust.

63. The learned counsel also takes serious objection to many of the annexures to the election petition not being produced in their entirety. He submits that the election petitioner Sri Prasanna Kumar, the petitioner in E.P.No.2/2009 is not even an elector in Davanagere Constituency. He has therefore no locus-standi to maintain this petition.

64. Sri Nargund submits that under MPLADS, the M.P.s are permitted to recommend specific kinds of works for the welfare of the people for building the durable community assets. He read out the relevant Guidelines of MPLADS. Under Guideline No.2.6 of the said Guidelines, the M.P. recommends the work and under Guideline No.2.10, the Deputy Commissioner would be generally the District Authority to implement the MPLADS in the District. Under Guideline No.2.11, the District Authority shall identify the implementing agency. Guideline No.3.19 even provides for the contribution from the public to the works recommended by the MPs. Under Guideline No.6.5(iv) of the said Guidelines, the implementing agency has to refund to the District Authority the savings (balance amounts). Going by the MPLADS, the implementing authority is not allowed to make any profits out of the works. Virtually it acts as a quality-controller and the supervisor of the works, so submits the learned counsel.

66. The learned counsel relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of BHIM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 5 SCC 538. In the said case, the constitutional validity of the MPLADS is upheld. The relevant paragraphs read out by him are extracted hereinbelow:

70. As discussed earlier, under the MPLAD Scheme, the MP concerned recommends works. The district authority verifies the eligibility and technical feasibility of each recommended work. Decision-making power in regard to technical, financial, administrative sanctions accorded under the Scheme, vests in the district level functionaries. The sanctioning of eligible works and their execution is done by the district authorities and the State Governments monitor the MPLAD works implementation.

the Deputy Commissioner pertaining to the constructions of bus shelters under MPLADS.

10    Respondent's letter dated 02.11.2007 to the          Ex-P8
      Deputy     Commissioner     regarding   the
      construction of 26 bus shelters under
      MPLADS
11    Respondent's letter dated 10.10.2008 to the          Ex-P9
      Deputy     Commissioner     regarding   the
      construction of one bus shelter near SOG
      colony.

12    Respondent's letter dated 10.10.2008 to the
      Deputy Commissioner for construction of              Ex-P10
      three bus shelters.

13    Deputy    Commissioner's     order    dated