Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5 The primary submission of the appellant before the High Court (and in these proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution as well) is that the field of development plans for districts is occupied by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 243ZD and the enactment of the state legislature noted above. According to the appellant, it is only the District Planning Committee which can identify or approve of a development plan. Hence, it was urged that elected representatives of the state legislature cannot be permitted to select a 1 (2010) 5 SCC 538 scheme other than what is within the purview of an approved development plan prepared by the District Planning Committees under the state legislation of 1999. The judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhim Singh (Supra) had been rendered during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. The appellant sought to make a distinction between crucial aspects of MPLADS which distinguish from the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme in Uttar Pradesh. Moreover, it was urged that the judgment of the Constitution Bench would not conclude the issue since Article 243ZD and the provisions of the state legislation of 1999 would apply to the state scheme (and not MPLADS).

(iii) there is no violation of the doctrine of separation of powers inasmuch as MPLADS is effectively controlled and implemented by the district authorities with adequate safeguards under the applicable guidelines; and

(iv) the role of Members of Parliament under MPLADS is limited to the initial choice of developmental work in the area, whereas the verification of eligibility and feasibility of the recommended work and its sanctioning and execution is carried out by local authorities or administrative bodies. It is the district authorities which identify the agency through which a particular kind of work should be executed and Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies are preferred agencies for implementation of work under MPLAD.

13 The impact of the provisions of the Seventy third and Seventy fourth amendments to the Constitution by which Parts IX and IXA were introduced also came up for deliberation in the course of the judgment. The grievance of the appellants was that MPLADS introduced a decision making authority which is extraneous to Parts IX and IXA. The submission was noted in the following terms :

“91. It is also the grievance of the appellants that with the passing of the Seventy third and Seventy fourth Amendments to the Constitution introducing Part IX in relation to the panchayat and Part IXA in relation to the municipalities, the entire area of local self-government has been entrusted to the panchayats under Article 243-G read with Schedule 11 and the municipalities under Articles 243-W, 243-ZD and 243-ZE read with Schedule 12 of the Constitution. According to them the MPLAD Scheme is inconsistent with Parts IX and IX-A insofar as the entire decision-making process in regard to community infrastructure of works of development nature for creation of durable community assets including drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation and roads, etc is given to the Members of Parliament even though the decision-making process in regard to these very same matters is conferred to the panchayats and municipalities. The MPLAD Scheme, according to them, is in direct conflict with Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution. It was argued that the Scheme introduces a foreign element which takes over part of the functions of the panchayats and municipalities.”

20 The State Government has not dealt with this grievance of the appellant either in the pleadings filed in the course of the proceedings before the High Court or in the counter affidavit which has been filed before this Court. The grievance that unlike MPLADS, the role of the elected representatives of the state legislature goes beyond merely recommending the work has remained uncontroverted. The judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh emphasised that MPLADS merely supplements the welfare schemes of the states and other local authorities and does not interfere in the functional or financial domain of the local planning authorities. In that context, it was noted on the basis of the guidelines that the role of the elected representatives is confined merely to recommending the work which is to be carried out. Thereafter, the decision making process commencing from the assessment of the feasibility of the work, estimation of the funds required and selection of the implementing agency as well as the work of supervision is entrusted to the competent authorities in the district levels. The provisions of Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution are duly observed since panchayati raj institutions in the rural areas and urban local bodies in the urban areas are to be the preferred implementing agencies under MPLADS. The State Government ought to have applied its mind to these crucial aspects which distinguish MPLADS from the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme. When the Division Bench of the High Court delivered its judgment on 30 May 2013, it emphasised the need for ensuring accountability in regard to public moneys and to the duty of the state to take all possible steps to prevent their misuse. The Division Bench noted that the “murmur against perceived misuse of Vidhayak Nidhi is becoming more audible”. It was in this view, that a direction was issued to the Principal Secretaries in the Planning and Development Department and in the Legislative Department to take heed of the suggestions of the appellants with “sincerity and promptitude”. The State Government in the two orders which have been passed by its Principal Secretaries on 21 May 2014 and 17 June 2014 paid only lip service to the grievance of the appellant. The principles which have been formulated in the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Bhim Singh have not even been noticed nor has any attempt been made on the part of the State Government to ensure that the guidelines which govern the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme are brought in consonance with the provisions of Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution and the observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh. Hence, while we are of the view that there can be no objection to the state implementing a scheme of the nature that was upheld by the Constitution Bench in Bhim Singh, the safeguards which form a part of the MPLAD Scheme should be duly considered so as to ensure that the role which is ascribed to the district planning authorities and institutions of local self-governance is not denuded. The safeguards which must be introduced shall include the following :