In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ______OF 2006
In the matter of: xxxxxx Petitioner VERSUS
Union of India, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-11001 Through its Secretary.
State Governments Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DIRECTING ALL THE RESPONDENTS
TO IMPLEMENT IN ITS TRUE SPIRIT, DIKTATS OF THE CONSTITUTION
AS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE 73RD AMENDMENT DEVOLVING
VARIOUS FUNCTIONS TO LOCAL-SELF GOVERNMENTS, NAMELY,
PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS IN KEEPING WITH THE PROVISIONS
MADE UNDER PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
The Petitioner above named,
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the Petitioner, being a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, has brought quite a few problems of the people
before the Hon’ble Court for securing redressal thereof, and has established its locus standi in its capacity as a public interest organization for taking up
matters of general public importance.
2. That the instant Writ Petition is being filed in public interest for seeking
directions to the Respondents for compliance with the Constitutional
mandate of empowerment of Rural Local-Self Governments, namely,
panchayats at the district, intermediate and village level as brought about by
the 73rd constitutional Act 1992 Amendment to the Constitution of India.
3. That local governments have a long history in our country. Village
panchayats have been powerful and self-contained for thousand of years.
Elected local governments were accorded great respect even by the alien,
colonial British government in India. To illustrate one telling instance,
when the great freedom fighter Chittaranjan Das was elected as Mayor of
Calcutta Municipal Corporation in 1924, he fought for, and won, the right
to appoint his own chief executive officer within the interference of the
Provincial Government. He then selected the 27 year old Subhash Chandra
Bose as his chief executive, whose outstanding work was appreciated by
all. Subhash Bose went on to be the Mayor of Calcutta, President of the
Congress and finally became a legend in his own life time as a great
freedom fighter. Jawaharlal Nehru, Vithalbhai Patel and Vallabhbhai Patel
started their public life as leaders of local governance. In contrast,
provincial governments came to power only in 1937 after the enactment of
the Government of India Act, 1935. The Union government came to power
only in 1947.
4. That the architects of the Indian Constitution also recognized the necessity
of having strong local self-governments and provided for a directive
principle in that regard at Article 40 of the Constitution of India, which
inter alia, reads as follows : “The State shall take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them
with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to
function as units of self-government.”
Despite the Directive Principles in the Constitution, many of the States
observed the mandate of the constituting and empowering local
governments more in its breach.
5. As reasonable steps for empowering and enabling the local governments to
function as units of self-government were not taken, the need for
amendments to the Constitution was felt. The Panchayati Raj system
became part of the Constitution of India in 1993 through the 73rd
amendment Act 1992, which was enacted in April, 1993. This amendment
gave local governments a constitutional basis and position by inserting a
new part in the Constitution, namely, Part IX, dealing with the panchayats.
The relevant articles that come within Part IX of the Constitution are
described below :
(a) Article 243B provides that there shall be constituted in every State, panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of Part IX. However, in States with a population not exceeding twenty lakhs, panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted.
(b) Article 243C empowers states to make provisions through law for the composition of panchayats, subject to the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution.
(c) Article 243D provides for reservation of both seats and leadership positions for the Scheduled Castes, tribes and women in panchayats.
(d) Article 243E provides for a normal duration of 5 years for panchayats and a gap of not more than 6 months between the expiry of the period and the conduct of the elections for the next term of the panchayats, in certain circumstances. (e) Article 243K invests the authority of preparing the electoral rolls and conducting elections in the State Election Commission.
(f) Article 243F empowers the State Government to make laws providing for disqualification of persons for election as a member of the panchayats.
(g) Under Article 243J, the State can make law with respect to maintenance of accounts by the panchayats and their audit.
(h) Article 243G is an important article and speaks of the powers, authority and responsibilities of panchayats. This article is quoted below so as to reveal fully its scope and ambit:
“ Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to:
a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice;
b) the implementation of schemes for economic of development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.”
6. The Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution, which has to be read along with Article 243G, lists out several functions that can be transferred to panchayats by the legislation made by the States, in compliance with Part IX. The schedule is comprehensive in its coverage and lists out 29 functions that may be transferred to panchayats as follows:
1. Agriculture, including agricultural extension. 2. Land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation and soil conservation. 3. Minor irrigation, water management and watershed development. 4. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry. 5. Fisheries. 6. Social forestry and farm forestry. 7. Minor forest produce. 8. Small scale industries, including food processing industries. 9. Khadi, village and cottage industries. 10. Rural housing. 11. Drinking water. 12. Fuel and fodder. 13. Roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other means of communication. 14. Rural electrification, including distribution of electricity. 15. Non-conventional energy sources. 16. Poverty alleviation programmes. 17. Education, including primary and secondary schools. 18. Technical training and vocation education. 19. Adult and non-formal education. 20. Libraries. 21. Cultural activities. 22. Markets and Fairs. 23. Health and sanitation, including hospitals, Primary health centers and dispensaries. 24. Family Welfare. 25. Women and Child Development. 26. Social Welfare, including welfare of the handicapped and mentally retarded. 27. Welfare of the weaker sections, and in particular of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 28. Public distribution system. 29. Maintenance of community assets.
7. Apart from the panchayats and the municipalities constituted through the
74th amendment, Article 243ZD mandates that a District Planning
Committee shall be constituted in every State at the District Level to
consolidate the plans prepared by the panchayats and the municipalities and
to prepare a draft development plan as a whole. Article 243 ZD 2(b)
provides that not less than four-fifths of the total members of such
Committee shall be elected by and from amongst the elected members of
the panchayats at the district level and all the municipalities in the district in
proportion to the ratio between the population of the rural areas and urban
areas. 8. That the guiding principle behind Part IX of the Constitution and the
assisting provisions are a manifestation of the “Gram Swaraj” ideal
propounded by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. The spirit of the
Constitution is to empower panchayats with certain functional mandates,
give them a significant degree of autonomy and impart to them an element
of self-reliance and self-sufficiency through fiscal transfers, taxation that
clearly powers and tax assignments. Moreover, the intent of Part IX is also
that the panchayats are expected to be constituted and to function as units of
rural local self-government.
9. That the expressions in Article 243B relating to constitution of panchayats
are very similar to those in Article 79 relating to Parliament and Article 168
relating to Legislatures in States. Article 243L, which speaks of the creation
of State Finance Commissions, has a wording similar to Article 275 related
to the constitution of central finance commissions to make
recommendations to the President as to the distribution of the net proceeds
of taxes between the Union and the States and other related matters. The
expressions used in Article 243K in respect of the State Election
Commission are similar to those used in Article 324 relating to the central
Election Commission. In fact, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the
relationship between the state government and the panchayats is designed
on similar lines to that of the Centre and a State, with the notable difference
being that while there are no legislative powers conferred on panchayats,
there is, in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution, a representative list
of functions that may be assigned to them.
10. That Article 243G uses the operative terms “endow” and “devolution” with
respect to powers given to Panchayats. In broad terms the scope of these
words would cover the transfer of power over funds, power over functions
and power over functionaries. Without the three going together with
respect to any scheme, the process of endowment or devolution is not
complete. Only if such endowment of devolution is complete, can the panchayat be expected to discharge its responsibility as a local self
government.
11. That Article 243N of the Constitution speaks of the continuance of
existing laws with respect to panchayats. It states that notwithstanding
anything in the Constitution, any provision of any law relating to
panchayats in force in a State immediately before the commencement of
the Seventy-third Amendment Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the
provisions of Part IX, shall continue to be in force until amended or
repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until
the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier.
In Article 243N is implicit the premise that after one year of the coming
into force of the 73rd Amendment, no provision of any law that relates to
panchayats can exist, which is in violation or contravention of the
Panchayati Raj Act of the State concerned. In other words, the panchayat
law enacted under the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution would gain
precedence over any provision of any law. It is thus clear that legislations
empowering panchayats with powers and responsibility have a special and
predominant status.
12. That if the entire purport of the 73rd amendment is looked into and
construed in its proper spirit and if the same is read along with the
Preamble of the Constitution of India by which “we the people” have
solemnly resolved to constitute India into a “democratic republic” it is
evident that the very purpose of the Constitutional requirement of having
panchayats is to provide for effective local self-government. Though the
Constitutional provisions make it clear that panchayats shall be set up at
the district, intermediate and village level, the State Governments
concerned may endow them with functions through their enabling
legislations. A reading of Article 243 G in its entirely would show that
while States do have a degree of leeway in empowering the panchayats, such flexibility is considerably limited by the imperative that the “
endowment of powers and authority” on the Panchayats ought to be “as
may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-
government”. In other words, such endowment has to be real and not
cosmetic. In addition, the endowment of such functions must have specific
regard to the preparation of plans and implementation thereof for
economic development and social justice. Therefore, unless the powers
with regard to the preparation of plans and the implementation thereof, in
respect of various aspects including in relation to subjects enumerated in
the Eleventh Schedule, are made over and devolved by endowing the
panchayats with functions, the entire 73rd constitutional amendment would
become meaningless and futile.
13. That in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, all states have
enacted Panchayati Raj Acts, which transfer functions to the panchayats to
a greater or a lesser degree. The Petitioner has on his own made an
independent survey regarding the transfer of functions in various states to
the Panchayati Raj institutions through legislation. The Petitioner as a
sample study had taken into account the situation in the following eight (8)
states:
1) Gujarat.
2) Karnataka.
3) Rajasthan.
4) West Bengal.
5) Manipur.
6) Andhra Pradesh.
7) Haryana.
8) Arunachal Pradesh.
The Petitioner has prepared a thorough report in a tabulated form regarding
the functions transferred to various tiers of panchayats. A true copy of the above- mentioned report is annexed collectively hereto and marked as
Annexure P.1 (colly).
14. That in spite of the fact that enabling legislations have been passed by
States, the first decade after the 73rd amendment has seen very little
change in the way that central and state departments have dealt with
panchayats. While it can be seen that the enabling PRI legislations of
various States may have operationalised the constitutional intent of
transferring functions to PRIs so as “may be necessary to enable them to
function as institutions of self-government” (as stated in Article 243 G),
there has been a lack of action in the actual transfer of these functions in
practice. It has continued to be business as usual for departments, which
have functioned more or less in the same manner as they did before the
73rd amendment. Panchayats have been hardly recognized as having any
autonomy or responsibility. They have at best been perfunctorily involved
in implementation of programmes and, at worst, ignored and supplanted
by parallel agencies in implementing departmental programmes. The
outcome of this apathy towards the operationalising of Part IX of the
Constitution has been a situation where notwithstanding the provisions of
the constitution and the law, ministries and departments, both at the
central and state levels have created through executive orders, schemes
that are implemented in states, with respect to those functions transferred
to panchayats through state laws. The guidelines of several schemes do
not comply with the law. Several of these schemes are also implemented
through institutional arrangements that run parallel to the panchayats and
are supervised and managed by officers who are not accountable to the
panchayats. Note: Here we should give an example and add an annexe.
Give the example of the DRDAs. Download the guidelines of the support
to DRDAs scheme and include them here. 15. That the key objective of Article 243G is to ensure that panchayats at all
levels function as institutions of self-government rather than as
implementing agencies. While devolution must eventually comprise the
entire range of subjects provided for in State legislations in a time-bound
manner, states and UTs would need to prioritize full and effective
devolution in empowering panchayats at each level as institutions of
self-government in respect of functions that are legislatively assigned. To
this end, the essential step is to undertake activity mapping relating to
devolved functions with a view to attributing each activity to the
appropriate level of panchayat, keeping in mind the principle of
subsidiarity. However, several States have not yet undertaken this critical
step of activity mapping, thereby leaving a large measure of uncertainty,
concurrence and, therefore, confusion, in the assignment of functions to
panchayats. Details in this regard as obtained from the “State of the
Panchayats Report – A Mid-Term Review and Appraisal” ( an official
publication brought out in November 2006 by the Union Ministry of
Panchayati Raj, the respondent no. 1 herein) are annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure P-2.
16. That Activity mapping is the pre-cursor to the devolution, nationally, of
financés and assignment of functionaries to the panchayat level. In order
to ensure that State Panchayati Raj Laws are implemented in their true
spirit, legislative devolution to panchayats ought to be further clarified
through activity mapping. Following activity mapping, matching funds
must be devolved to panchayats at the appropriate levels in accordance
with activity mapping. This in turn would facilitate the devolution of
functionaries to panchayats for the effective exercise of their devolved
powers and responsibilities. Therefore, fiscal devolution is a vital step in
the process of operationalising the mandate contained in Part IX of the
Constitution, read along with the Eleventh Schedule. Clarity in respect of
fiscal devolution is best achieved through the provision of a separate panchayat sector window in the budget of each state, in which funds pertaining to departments concerned with functions devolved to panchayats are earmarked and placed. This would enable panchayats themselves to clearly see the means with which they can better perform their assigned functions. It would also effectively enable all citizens to better understand the fiscal position of their panchayats and thereby be in a better position to effectively participate in Gram Sabhas and undertake social audit of their panchayats. In this respect, the Petitioner analyzed from “A Mid-Term Appraisal …”, referred to in para 15 above, the nature of the devolution of finances to PRIs in eight states and accordingly came to know that except for Karnataka, Kerala and Rajasthan, the other states analysed do not have a separate budget window for the effective devolution of funds to panchayats at all levels. It is indeed ridiculous to see that Panchayati Raj institutions, which have a wide array of functions and powers transferred by the Panchayati Raj Acts of the respective states, do not have the pecuniary backup to exercise their powers and meet their responsibilities, by effectively performing their devolved functions. The absence of matching fiscal devolution completely undermines legislative devolution and renders ineffective the provisions of Article 243 G of the
Constitution, read along with the eleventh schedule and the provisions of the state Panchayati Raj Acts concerned, devolving functions, powers and responsibilities to Panchayats. The analysis of budgets in Gujarat,
Karnataka, Kerala, and Rajasthan also indicate that even in these states, the provision of separate panchayat sector windows in the state budgets does not entirely match functional devolution. Kerala provides details of the untied plan funds devolved to each Panchayats through a separate annexe to the state budget. However, Kerala does not devolve any non- plan funds to panchayats, thus limiting the control of panchayats over the functionaries related to the performance of devolved functions. Karnataka devolves both plan and non-plan funds to panchayats at all levels and indicates district-wise details through a separate annexe to the budget, named a ‘link book’. However, details are not furnished panchayat wise.
Karnataka also corrected to a large extent the growing mismatch between functional and fiscal devolution through a separate government order dated 16-10-2004. Gujarat indicates separate provisions for panchayats in their budget. In Rajasthan, preliminary analysis of the state budget shows that while the budget makes provision for allocation of funds separately to panchayats, these are not indicated separately in one place. More seriously, only token allocations have been made to panchayats and the bulk of the funds relating to devolved functions continue to be allocated to state line departments. It is revealed in “A Mid-Term Appraisal …”, referred to in para 15 above, that apart from Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala and Rajasthan, only Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh have provided for separate panchayat sector windows in their budgets, in which the devolution to panchayats has been indicated separately. The remaining states, including the five states for which functional devolution has been analysed by the Petitioner (Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh,
Haryana and West Bengal) neither have a separate budget window for panchayats nor do they follow any effective formal mechanism with regard to allocation of funds to PRIs. Even in states that have a separate budget window for panchayats, actual releases of funds are often delayed through treasury bans or diverted for other purposes. In case of Andhra
Pradesh and Haryana, sometimes the fund is transferred to parallel bodies at the district level. The uncertainties about the arrival and the channeling/distribution of funds through intermediaries not only undermines Panchayati Raj Institutions but also makes them subordinate to parallel bodies. It also blunts and limits the scope of citizens to exercise vigilance over the actions or omissions to act of panchayats elected by them through instruments such as Gram Sabha meetings and social audit.
A true copy of the above-mentioned report is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P.3. 17. That a major obstacle to the functioning of these local self-governments is
the existence of parallel bodies. Parallel bodies are those set up as directed
by the State or Central Governments to plan and/or execute development
projects in areas, which are in the functional domain of panchayats, using
funds provided by the State or Central Governments or donor funds. They
are called parallel because they have a separate system of decision making
on resource allocation and execution of projects which is independent and
removed from the Panchayat Raj set up. These parallel bodies could have
in them bureaucrats, elected representatives and, even, non-officials and
community representatives in decision making positions. They have
considerable autonomy, flexible procedures and function in isolation,
reporting directly to the State Government and some times to the Central
Government. Examples of parallel bodies are the District Rural
Development Agencies (DRDAs), Forest Development Agencies (FDAs),
Societies set up for Sarva Shisksha Abhiyaan (SSA), Societies set up for
different health programmes such as Blindness Control, TB Eradication,
AIDS Control, Filariasis Eradication and District Project Management
Units of Externally-assisted Projects. The Respondent no.1, in its mid-
term ‘Review and Appraisal’ report, has admittedly stated that as per the
information provided to the Ministry, it has been observed that some of
the State Governments/Union Territories have established parallel bodies
which are dealing with functions given to Panchayati Raj institutions in
violation of the provisions of the Constitution. A true copy of the above-
mentioned report is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P.3.
18. That some of the parallel bodies such as DRDAs were created and may
have been appropriate in the pre-73rd Amendment era. However, in the
new legal context of the 73rd Amendment, the new political context
brought in by functioning of elected bodies, the new development context
giving primacy to participatory development, and the new administrative
context giving importance to transparency and accountability there is a need for revisiting the raison d’etre of these bodies. As the Constitution mandates that planning for economic development and social justice and implementation of such plans should be the responsibility of the panchayats, parallel bodies have become redundant. As fully elected panchayats are in place there cannot be any place for semi-bureaucratic structures with a partial role for non-officials, particularly for the following reasons.
1. They compete for political space and usurp the legitimate space of
PRIs.
2. They context the very rationale of PRIs and question the
conceptualization of PRIs as institutions of Local-self Government.
They reduce PRIs to the status of “yet another organization”.
3. They challenge the idea of functional domain of PRIs.
4. They mock at the PRIs through superior resource endowments and
visible patronage systems.
They undermine the entire democratic process by limiting the scope
of performance of elected representatives to panchayats, who have
been elected by citizens to exercise specific functions and
responsibilities. It is possible that successful candidates may have
raised issues and given a different list of priorities for schemes to
be implemented than those imposed/selected by parallel bodies.
5. Several of the arguments put forth by proponents of parallel bodies,
such as protection of funds from diversion have now been
weakened because such protection is easily achieved even through
Panchayat Raj Institutions and the Right to Information Act.
Attention is drawn to Article 243 H of the Constitution, which enables States to create through law, separate funds for Panchayats,
in which moneys meant for them can be placed.
19. Article 243ZD provides that every State at the district level should
constitute a District Planning Committee to consolidate the Plan prepared
by the Panchayat and the Municipality in the district and to prepare draft
development plan for the district as a whole.
Art. 243ZD provides as follows:
1) There shall be constituted in every State at the district level a
District Planning Committee to consolidate the plans prepared by
the Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to prepare a
draft development plan for the district as a whole.
2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect
to:
a) the composition of the District Planning Committees;
b) the manner in which the seats in such Committees shall be filled
Provided that not less than four-fifths of the total number of
members of such Committee shall be elected by, and from
amongst, the elected members of the Panchayat at the district
level and of the Municipalities in the district in proportion to the
ratio between the population of the rural areas and of the urban
areas in the district;
c) the functions relating to district planning which may be assigned
to such Committees;
d) the manner in which the Chairpersons of such Committees shall
be chosen. 3) Every District Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft
development plan, -
a) have regard to –
i) matters of common interest between the Panchayats and the
Municipalities including spatial planning, sharing of water and other
physical and natural resources, the integrated development of
infrastructure and environmental conservation;
ii) the extent and type of available resources whether financial or
otherwise;
iii) consult such institutions and organizations as the Governor
may, by order, specify.
4) The Chairperson of every District Planning Committee shall
forward the development plan, as recommended by such
Committee, to the Government of the State.
However, many States have not taken any steps till date for
constituting District Planning Committees in accordance with the
provisions of Article 243ZD. The existence of District Planning
Committees will facilitate the working of the Local Self-Government
and will help in achieving the goal set out by the Constitution
makers. .The Respondent no.1 in Volume I of its Mid-term ‘Review &
Appraisal’ has set out the details of the states which have and those
which have not set up District Planning Committees. A true copy of the
above-mentioned report is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P.5.
20. That in view of the above submissions and the materials on record the
Petitioner seeks directions on the following grounds amongst others. GROUNDS
(a) For that India has constituted through Constitutional mandate a system of local government consisting of Panchayats at the District,
Intermediate and District levels, which facilitate the participation by people in Governance at all levels.
(b) For that in the present tardy level of implementation of the
provisions of the Constitution relating to local self government,
including mandatory provisions therein, this overall goal of
deepening democracy cannot be achieved.
(c) For that in a democracy the citizen is at the centre and decision
making is with the Government. Governments at all levels from the
Centre to States to local governments, derive their legitimacy from
citizens and the Constitution, which they cannot ignore.
(d) For that there is a need to ensure that the provisions of the
Constitution relating to local self government are mandatorily to be
implemented, for which purpose all laws, rules and regulations
relating to the achievement of the said purpose shall conform,
(e) For that the constitution of parallel bodies through executive orders
is in direct violation of Article 243G and 243N of the Constitution
and is hampering the growth of Panchayati Raj in the manner as
mandated by the Constitution,
(f) For that formal devolution of powers and responsibilities to
Panchayats through State legislation has not been matched by a
concomitant transfer of funds and functionaries to Panchayats, resulting in such legislative devolution being merely symbolic and
not effective. States have retained executive power and funds
relating to the performance of responsibilities devolved through law
with State departmental functionaries reporting to the State
governments, thereby negating the aforesaid laws.
(g) For that the Central Government has issued several scheme related
guidelines, which set up parallel institutional mechanisms and fail to
give clear and precise roles to Panchayats at all levels, in conformity
with State laws devolving such powers to Panchayats,
(h) For that the Central Government is equally bound to conform to
Article 243ZD of the Constitution and its executive orders shall be
subservient to legislative devolution of functions to Panchayats,
(i) For that the gap between the formal devolution of functions to
Panchayats and the assignment of funds and functionaries to them
violates the cardinal principle that authority and accountability for
performance of responsibilities arising out of the vesting of
authority shall vest in the same governance entity,
(j) That the violation of the letter and the true spirit of Panchayati Raj
by the State and the Central Governments strikes at the root of
multilevel federalism, which rests on the principle that no State unit
at any level shall usurp or transgress into the areas and power of
another at a different level,
20. The present Petition is being preferred bonafide, in the interests of
justice and in public interest. 21. No other Writ Petition or other proceeding has been initiated by the
Petitioner before any other High Court or before this Hon’ble Court in
regard to the subject matter of the present Petition.
22. The Petitioner has no alternative equally efficacious remedy in law
for the cause of action being agitated herein.
P R A Y E R S
In the circumstances as stated above it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :
i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing all the Respondents to show cause as to why laws
relating to Panchayati Raj Institutions as passed by the respective
States have not been implemented in their true letter and spirit.
ii. direct all Respondent State Governments who have undertaken the
legislations devolving powers and responsibilities to Panchayats to
undertake a detailed exercise of Activity Mapping, aimed at
denoting with clarity the precise activities relating to each function
that are devolved to each level of Panchayat;
iii. Direct all State governments to undertake a detailed review of their
budgets with a view to identifying those allocations of funds that
pertain to the functions devolved to each level of Panchayat and
allocate these to the Panchayats concerned in a separate and distinct Panchayat sector window within the budget document, so as to
ensure clarity in the allocation of funds to Panchayats and eliminate
the current mismatch between the devolution of functions and
allocation of funds,
iv. direct the Union of India to undertake a time-bound exercise to
review all schemes and guidelines issued by it so as to ensure that
they are strictly in accordance with the pattern of devolution of
functions to Panchayats, mandated by the State laws concerned,
v. direct the Union of India and State Governments to identify and
abolish those parallel bodies that transgress into the functional areas
devolved to the Panchayats as being ultra vires to the Constitution,
vi. direct all State Governments and Union Territories that have not
constituted District Planning Committees to so constitute such
committees as mandatorily provided and in accordance with the
provisions of Article 243ZD of the Constitution
and
vii. grant such other further order or orders as deemed fit by this
Hon’ble Court in public interest.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY
BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.
Petitioner.
Through
Advocate for the Petitioner.
New Delhi. Dated: