CHAPTER 5
STATUS OF DECENTRALISED GOVERNANCE
A. Brief Historical Overview
5.1 Modern local government in India has a rather long history extending to the earliest years of British rule under the East India Company, when a municipal body was established in Madras in 1688 followed soon thereafter by Bombay and Calcutta. These earliest corporations neither had any legislative backing, having been set up on the instructions of the Directors of the East India Company with the consent of the Crown, nor were they representative bodies as they consisted entirely of nominated members from among the non-native population. They were set up mainly to provide sanitation in the Presidency towns, but they did not prove to be very effective in this task. Act X of 1842 was the first formal measure for the establishment of municipal bodies. Though applicable only to the Bengal Presidency it remained inoperative there. Town Committees under it were, however, set up in the two hill stations of Mussoorie and Nainital in 1842 and 1845 respectively, on the request of European residents. Uttarakhand thus has the distinction of having some of the earliest municipalities established in the country, outside the Presidency towns. Their record too was not very encouraging. When the Government of India passed Act XXVI in 1850 the municipal bodies of Mussoorie and Nainital were reconstituted under it.
5.2 The motivation for establishing municipal bodies in the initial years was not any commitment to local government on the part of the British. Rather it was inspired by the desire to raise money from the local population for provision of civic services. In the words of the Directors of the East India Company: ‚the people would more willingly and liberally disburse five shillings towards the public good being taxed by themselves, than sixpence imposed by our despotical powers‛. A secondary motive was the desire for ‚mentoring native political leadership and ameliorating the causes of political dissent in India, while at the same time reinforcing the structure of colonial rule by directing native political aspirations towards constructive forms of self government‛. The transformation of municipal bodies from a body of Europeans to representation of the native population, and from a nominated to an elected body was a slow and long-drawn process. It was only accomplished in stages over the second half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century.
5.3 An important date in the evolution of modern local government in India is 1882 when Lord Ripon initiated his famous reforms outlined in the
-55-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
Resolution on Local Self-Government of 18th May. The general principles underlying the resolution bear repetition as they underline the liberal values that motivated it and also provided the template for organisation of local government for many years to come. They may be summarised as follows:
Political education is the primary function of local government, of greater importance than administrative efficiency Rural boards, similar to municipal boards, to be set up: the unit of administration to be small – the subdivision, tahsil or taluks All boards should contain a two-thirds majority of non-officials, preferably elected Chairmen of all local boards should preferably be non-officials Elections to begin immediately in more progressive towns and be extended gradually to smaller towns and the countryside ‘Control should be exercised from without rather than within’ Each province to interpret the general directions of the Resolution according to local conditions.
5.4 Unfortunately, as usually happens, the above principles were not fully followed in the legislation passed subsequently. The legislation reflected the prejudices of the administrators, some of whom were not fully in tune with the liberal ideals of the Resolution. The main bone of contention was whether the Chairman should be a non-official or the District Officer. The Heads of all major provinces were in favour of the District Officer.
5.5 A truly noteworthy, and perhaps even a revolutionary, feature of Lord Ripon’s Resolution was that the rural areas were also brought within the framework of local self-government, six years before there were any rural councils in England. The Resolution envisaged a two-tier structure of rural local bodies with the ‘sub-division, taluka or tehsil ordinarily forming the maximum area to be placed under a local board’; the district board being only a supervising or co-ordinating authority. In the course of implementation, however this provision was subverted in most of the provinces. The provincial acts entrusted the district boards with all the funds and most of the functions, with provision for the delegation of functions and money to the lower bodies at the discretion of the district boards. Since the district boards themselves were short of funds and without adequate functions, the lower level bodies hardly got any functions or money. The district boards were, in practice, largely nominated bodies dominated by the local landlords, who considered it beneath their dignity to contest elections. In fact the elected members were generally looked down upon by the nominated members. They could hardly be called effective institutions as they had few resources, though they may have been given impressive functions. They were fully
-56-
Third State Finance Commission
subservient to the district administration. Ripon’s desire was to develop rural local government on the foundations of the ancient village system. But this remained only a pious wish.
5.6 The next important landmark in the evolution of local government in India was the appointment of the Royal Commission upon Decentralisation in 1907 ‚to enquire into the financial and administrative relations of the Government of India and provincial governments – and of ‘authorities subordinate to them’, and to report ‘whether by measure of decentralisation or otherwise’, the system of government might be ‘simplified and improved’. The Commission submitted its report in 1909. The recommendations of the Royal commission upon decentralisation may be summarised as follows:
The village must be the foundation of any system of associating the people with the administration. It was no longer possible to restore the ancient village system, but the panchayat should be re-established as the instrument of a new kind of village government The village headman should become the sarpanch with other members being elected informally. The functions of the village panchayat should include petty civil and criminal cases, sanitation, minor public works and building and managing village schools. They should not be burdened with taxation. They should be supervised by district officers and not by district boards. The funds of district boards should be augmented by (a) transferring all of the land revenue cess (b) authorising them to raise the cess to two annas in the rupee (12.5%) and (c) giving block grants to the poorer boards on a long term basis and not tying funds to specified purposes. Non-local duties like plague and famine relief and upkeep of trunk roads should become provincial responsibilities. They should be given a freer hand in the field of education, public works and medical services. The District Magistrate should continue to be the chairman of the district board, but he should function as a ‘constitutional’ head abiding by the feelings of the board. Control from above should be strictly limited with the provincial government intervening only to suspend or abolish a board if it failed to discharge its statutory obligations. Taluka and tehsil boards should again be established as the ‘principal agencies of local government’. They should be assigned specific duties: management of minor roads, primary
-57-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
education and rural dispensaries, and given 50 per cent of the district board income. Urban bodies should be almost entirely free of official control. The chairman and a majority of members should be elected non- officials. Committees should be set up for routine supervision of different services. Municipal boards should have full powers of taxation as well as control over budgets. They should be relieved of non-local duties like famine relief, town police, and maintenance of district headquarters hospital. Municipal administration must be strengthened by appointment of competent persons as Executive Officer, Medical Officer of Health and Engineer. Higher control was to be similar to that recommended in the case of district boards: the provincial government intervening only to suspend or abolish a municipal board if it failed to discharge its statutory obligations.
5.7 In the United Provinces, village panchayats were set up under the U.P. Village Panchayat Act, 1920. Panchayats of five to seven members were constituted for a circle consisting of the village and its surroundings. The chairmen and members were either elected or nominated. Their primary function was to act as a petty court in civil and criminal cases. They were also given responsibility for sanitation and education and also made responsible for maintenance of tanks, wells and village tracks, which were financed by grants administered by the district officer and fines realised in discharge of the judicial functions. Supervision over these bodies was exercised by the District Magistrate and the revenue staff.
5.8 In 1922 a new District Boards Act was drafted in U.P., this time by the provincial government which sought to emancipate the boards from official control. The bill faced considerable opposition in the Legislative Council, especially from the Muslim members and the landowners. The former succeeded in getting separate representation for Muslims. The latter were opposed to the power given to district boards to raise the cess on land revenue from five per cent to six-and-a-half per cent. Ultimately they relented when they succeeded in linking this proposal to the imposition of a tax on circumstances and property on non-agricultural income. The Act specifically stipulated that a board might not increase land revenue cess unless it simultaneously imposed the circumstances and property tax.
5.9 After independence the trajectory of local government in India has been shaped largely by the imperatives of development within a centralised framework and the reluctance of state governments to permit local bodies– both urban and rural – to emerge out of their stranglehold. In fact, in many
-58-
Third State Finance Commission
instances, local bodies today may be said to be less powerful than they were in the past. The most important development related to local government soon after independence was the report of the Balwantrai Mehta Committee, 1957. This committee, it may be recalled, had been appointed to study the Community Development (CD) projects and National Extension Service (NES), initiated for the uplift of rural areas in 1952 and 1953 respectively. The Committee found that the progress of CD and NES was hampered by the absence of ‚a representative and democratic institution which will supply the local interest, supervision and care necessary to ensure that expenditure of money upon local objects conforms with the needs and wishes of the locality‛ and which would be invested with adequate power and appropriate finances in order to enable it to evoke local interest and excite local initiative in the field of development. The Committee recommended the creation of a three- tier system of democratic decentralization (which later came to be known as the Panchayati Raj System), consisting of the village Panchayat at village level, the panchayat samiti at block level and the Zila Parishad at district level, and recommended that the entire development administration should be handed over to these bodies.
Based on the recommendations of the Balwantrai Mehta committee most of the states established a three-tier panchayati raj structure. Unfortunately, the experience of the working of these bodies was none too happy. Many states, it turned out, were not fully committed to the principle of democratic decentralization. As a result, despite the existence of legislation, panchayats in many cases remained a neglected lot. Elections were not held for years at a stretch, and they were hardly given any powers, functions or role.
5.10 In 1977 another committee under Ashok Mehta was appointed which submitted its report in 1978. The main recommendations of this committee were:
The 3-tier system of Panchayati Raj should be replaced by the 2- tier system: Zilla Parishad at the district level and Mandal Panchayat consisting of a group of villages covering a population of 15,000 to 20,000 Zila Parishad should be the executive body and made responsible for planning at the district level Development functions should be transferred to the Zila Parishad and all development staff should work under its control and supervision Panchayat Raj institutions should have compulsory powers of taxation to mobilise their own financial resources
-59-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
There should be a regular social audit by a district level agency and by a committee of legislators to check whether the funds allotted for the vulnerable social and economic groups are actually spent on them The state government should not supersede the Panchayat Raj institutions. In case of an imperative supercession, election should be held within 6 months from the date of supersession Nyaya Panchayats, presided over by a qualified judge, should be separate from development Panchayats The Chief Electoral Officer of the state, in consultation with the Chief Election Commissioner, should organise and conduct the Panchayati Raj elections Seats for SCs and STs should be reserved on the basis of their population 5.11 States like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh reconstituted their panchayati raj system on the lines recommended by the Ashok Mehta Committee. Most of the other states, however, persisted with the old system. Finally in 1993, the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution created a uniform structure of rural and urban local government in the country.
B. Rural Areas
5.12 The structure of rural decentralised governance in Uttarakhand, consisting of three tiers of panchayati raj institutions – Gram Panchayats at the village level (either for one village or for a group of villages), Kshetra Panchayats at the level of the development block and Zila Panchayats at the district level – corresponds closely with the provisions of the 73rd amendment to the constitution. The existing structure of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), inherited from Uttar Pradesh, is still governed in essential respects by the relevant legislation of the parent state viz. U.P. Zila Parishad and Kshetra Panchayat Act, 1961 and U. P. Village Panchayat Act, 1947 as adopted by Uttarakhand. Though these Acts predate the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, they were brought into conformity with it by making necessary amendments in 1994. After the passage of the 73rd CAA states had the option of either passing new legislation or amending their existing legislation in order to conform to the provisions of the CAA. Uttar Pradesh chose to amend its existing legislation. The new state of Uttarakhand has made only minor modifications to the Act. The modifications deal mainly with the size of Gram Panchayats i.e. minimum and maximum population, number of members and population size of territorial constituencies.
5.13 The Zila Panchayats of today have evolved from the District Boards established by the British in the erstwhile United Provinces early in the last
-60-
Third State Finance Commission
century. Thus the District Boards of Nainital, Almora, Pauri and Dehradun came into existence between 1918 and 1923. After independence the District Boards were renamed as Zila Parishads by the U.P. Zila Parishad and Kshetra Panchayat Act, 1961, and Zila Panchayats by the conformity Act of 1995.
5.14 The Kshetra Panchayats were made part of the three-tier panchayat structure in 1961 following the recommendations of the Balwantrai Mehta Committee Report. Initially known as Kshetra Samities they came to be designated as Kshetra Panchayats by the conformity legislation of 1995. Though they have been in existence for almost twenty-five years, there is, as yet, little clarity about their role and functions within the three-tier panchayati raj system. They have neither been assigned any independent functions or sources of revenue, nor do they have any employees, office premises, or money for office expenses. They are dependent on the Development Blocks for all these facilities.
5.15 Village level or Gram Panchayats, as they are known today, have existed as formal institutions in the state in some form since 1920. In that year the then government enacted the United Provinces Village Panchayat Act to ‚assist in the administration of civil and criminal justice in the rural areas and also to effect improvement in the sanitation and other common concerns of the villagers.‛ The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, replaced the earlier Act as it was felt that village Panchayats constituted under the 1920 Act were not representative bodies and their scope of work too was restricted. The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was amended in 1994 to conform to the provisions of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. It may be relevant to mention here that rural local bodies of the modern genre came into existence in British India on the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon Decentralization, 1919. To be fair, the Royal Commission was only echoing the ideas of Lord Ripon’s resolution of 1882 in this regard, which unfortunately were not translated into reality largely due to opposition by almost all provincial administrations; the only exception being the Central Provinces & Berar.
5.16 There are at present 7,541 Gram Panchayats (for 15,761 inhabited villages), 95 Kshetra Panchayats and 13 Zila Panchayats in the state. After the formation of the new State in 2000 the government tried to bring about some rationalisation of the Gram Panchayat structure. The results seem to have been quite the opposite. For instance, the minimum and maximum population of Gram Panchayats was fixed at 300 and 1000 in the hilly parts of the state and 1000 and 5000 for the plains. The ostensible reason was to prevent the proliferation of small rural bodies. Contrary to what was intended the number of Gram Panchayats has only increased over the years. Thus according to the report of the First State Finance Commission there were 7055
-61-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
Gram Panchayats in 2002; this number stood at 7227 in 2006 according to the report of the Second State Finance Commission; and it has now further increased to 7541. Furthermore as the report of the Second State Finance Commission points out as many as 812 Gram Panchayats had a population less than 300 ‚the smallest being with a population of merely 39‛.
5.17 The structure of PRIs in the state is non-hierarchical with each level more or less independent of the higher tier. Also there is no clear demarcation of functions between Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats on the one hand and Kshetra Panchayats and Gram Panchayats on the other, creating unnecessary and avoidable confusion. The U.P. Zila Panchayat and Kshetra Panchayat Act, 1961 assigns almost similar functions to Zila Panchayats and Kshetra Panchayats. Almost similar functions are also assigned to the Gram Panchayats by the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
5.18 There is large variation in the size, in terms of both population and area, of Zila Panchayats in Uttarakhand. The population of ZPs varies from slightly less than 2 lakhs in Champawat to almost 10 lakhs in Hardwar (both according to the 2001 census figures), and their area ranges between just under 1000 sq. kms. (Champawat) to near 8000 sq. kms. (Uttarkashi).
Table 5.1: Population and Area of Zila Panchayats
Zila Panchayat Population (2001) Area (sq. kms.)* Almora 578361 3665 Bageshwar 241659 1080 Chamoli 320000 7448 Champawat 198865 993 Dehradun 510199 3048 Hardwar 990085 1960 Nainital 762909 3422 Pauri Garhwal 624740 5329 Pithoragarh 462289 8856 Rudraprayag 224707 1971 Tehri Garhwal 544901 3565 Udham Singh Nagar 832600 2995 Uttarkashi 272095 7999 *Rounded off. Source: TSFC questionnaire 5.19 Over the years, as the government expanded its role, many functions that in the past had been performed by District Boards and Zila Parishads were taken over by the State Government. Zila Parishads ceased to run schools and dispensaries, which were taken over by the education and health departments of the State Government. Simultaneously, the financial position of the Zila Parishads also became weaker. On the other hand, the expenditure
-62-
Third State Finance Commission
of the Zila Parishads on salaries and allowances of its staff steadily increased because the state government prescribed the salary scales and allowances payable to the staff at par with those of State Government employees. In brief, the Zila Parishads became a pale shadow of their former selves in terms of functions and status, and came to be heavily dependent on grants from the State Government. Their problems were compounded by the fact that they remained superseded for years at a stretch and were placed under the administrative control of the district administration. Thus, they lost whatever little autonomy they may have enjoyed in the past.
5.20 Despite the fact that village Panchayats in the State have a long history they continue to be weak institutions and lack sufficient powers and financial resources. As a result they are dependent on the State Government for both direction and finances. As mentioned above, the Act of 1947 (as amended in 1994) gives the Gram Panchayats almost the same functions as are available to the Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats, resulting in duplication and avoidable confusion. Moreover, the State Government has not actually transferred any of these functions to the Gram Panchayats. An attempt was made in 1999 by the Uttar Pradesh Government to transfer some functions like primary education, health, minor irrigation etc. Some government personnel connected with these functions were also to be placed under the control of the Panchayats. Though necessary orders had been issued in this regard, they were not actually given effect to in the face of stiff opposition from the affected personnel. In 2005 the Uttarakhand Government also decided to transfer 14 functions to the Panchayats. These functions are: horticulture and food processing, social welfare, agriculture, drinking water and sanitation, food and civil supplies, medical health and family welfare, women and child development, minor irrigation, primary education, adult and non-formal education, libraries, cultural activities, rural housing, and poverty alleviation. Government Orders in respect of 10 functions have also been issued. Once again, this remains, as yet, only a paper exercise because it has not been accompanied by detailed activity mapping or a transfer of necessary funds and functionaries.
5.21 The absence of administrative support has emerged as one of the major weaknesses of the Gram Panchayats in Uttarakhand. As a result they are unable to do many things expected of them as institutions of self-government at the village level. The only administrative support available to them is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, but every GP does not have a full-time Secretary. There is such a shortage of personnel at the level of Secretary to GPs that it is quite the norm for one secretary to be responsible for a number of Gram Panchayats, at times as many as ten. For 7541 GPs in the state there are only 1232 Secretaries in position. Of these, only 412 (as against a
-63-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
sanctioned strength of 670) belong to the cadre of Gram Panchayat secretary in the the Panchayati Raj Department. Another 412 are Village Development Officers from the Rural Development Department. The rest – 141 in all – are multi-purpose workers drawn from departments like, social welfare, health, irrigation,tubewell and agriculture. The number of multi-purpose workers from the different departments are health – 36 of whom 19 are in Tehri; irrigation – 64 of whom 54 are in Hardwar; tubewell–40 of whom 34 are in Udham Singh Nagar; and agriculture – 1 who is in Hardwar.
5.22 The district-wise break-up of the personnel – both in terms of sanctioned posts and those filled in – is given in the accompanying table 5.2. The break-up of GP Secretaries belonging to various departments is also provided. Overall, at the state level there are 1232 personnel from various departments working as secretaries in 7541 Gram Panchayats, giving an average of about one secretary for about 6 GPs. At the district level the distribution of personnel is highly skewed in favour of the three plains districts of Hardwar, Udham Singh Nagar and Dehradun which have on average one secretary between 2 and 4 GPs, and Nainital being slightly higher at about 5. In all other districts, which are mountain districts the average number of GPs under a secretary ranges between 7 (Tehri Garhwal, Rudraprayag, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarkashi and Pithoragarh), 9 (Bageshwar, Champawat and Chamoli) and as high as almost 11 in Almora. Clearly the plains and Nainital are the preferred places of posting.
Table 5.2: District-wise Position of Staff in Gram Panchayats (2010) District Staff in Panchayati Raj Deptt Rural Social Other No. of position Dev. Welfare Deptts. GPs Sanctioned In Deptt. Deptt. posts position Almora 109 95 40 67 2 0 1146 Bageshwar 46 35 17 29 0 0 397 Chamoli 63 39 20 42 1 0 601 Champawat 33 24 14 19 0 0 290 Dehradun 106 46 37 60 4 5 403 Hardwar 148 40 39 52 2 55 302 Nainital 100 27 29 62 1 8 460 Pauri 170 118 74 91 1 4 1208 PithoragarhGarhwal 93 65 33 59 1 0 669 Rudraprayag 46 27 20 26 0 0 323 g Tehri 140 75 55 65 0 20 979 U.S.Garhwal Nagar 114 44 18 54 0 42 309 Uttarkashi 64 36 16 36 5 7 454 Total 1232 670 412 662 17 141 7541 Source: Panchayati Raj Directorate, Government of Uttarakhand, 2010.
-64-
Third State Finance Commission
C Urban Areas
5.23 There is today an inexorable trend towards higher urbanisation at both the national level and the state levels. Uttarakhand, like most other parts of the country, is experiencing steady migration from rural to urban areas, growth of new townships and change in the character of peripheral rural areas into peri-urban areas. Since urban areas offer advantages of economies of scale and agglomeration due to higher population densities, sharing of infrastructure, availability and sharing of human resources, sharing of services, better transportation and communication facilities, increased employment opportunities and increasing growth potential, they act as magnets attracting people from the rural areas. Such a trend can easily be discerned in the state along the highways, yatra routes, tourist destinations and in the vicinity of industrial areas. Some examples of such small townships are Agastamuni and Pipalkoti along the yatra route, Barechhina, Khairna, Satpuli and Bhikiyasain along highways, and Selakui, Bhagwanpur and Pantnagar in the vicinity of industrial areas. Kausani is a typical example of a village which having become an important tourist destination is still classified as a rural area. Though it is a popular tourist attraction the civic services here are woefully inadequate. Thus while the growing population and changing character of the area creates an increasing demand for civic services, it puts heavy pressure on the existing infrastructure,that is inadequate to begin with. The problem gets further compounded by a large floating/transitory population, often characterised by seasonality and periodicity. There has, so far, been little effort to bring the peri-urban areas within the ambit of municipal bodies. The resistance is primarily because on becoming urban the people on one hand lose the benefits of rural development programmes like Indira Awas Yojana, MNREGA, SJSY etc. and on the other become subject to municipal taxes. Although there is a provision for exemption of property tax in the initial years, but this provision tends to create inequity because while the older constructions with low values are subject to tax the new high value areas are either exempt or taxed at lower rates. Such a trend can be observed in Dehradun and Roorkee.
5.24 Even though disaggregation of GSDP by urban and rural areas is not available, there is sufficient indirect evidence to show that the urban share in GSDP has been increasing over the years. This can be inferred from the changing structure of economy. The contribution of the primary sector has come down from 32% to 17% while that of the secondary and tertiary sectors has gone up from 68% to 83%. The urban centres are clearly the engines of growth for the future. It is therefore extremely important that both economically and socially the city infrastructure is upgraded and maintained and service delivery is made efficient and cost effective.
-65-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
5.25 Increasing urbanisation and concentration of population leads to pressure on urban infrastructure, which if not properly addressed result in traffic congestion and bottlenecks, increased pollution, slums, environmental degradation, filth and squalor. Roorkee, Dehradun, Haldwani, Haridwar, and Kashipur can be cited as some of the examples of urban degradation in Uttarakhand.
5.26 The urban landscape of Uttarakhand consists of 63 municipal bodies consisting of one old Nagar Nigams (Dehradun) and two recently notified Nagar Nigam, Hardwar and Haldwani. (See Annexure-5-A & 5-B) 30 Nagar Palika Parishads and 30 Nagar Panchayats, 12 Census Towns and 2 Industrial Townships There is a large variation in the population and area of municipal bodies in the state as the following table shows:
Table 5.3:
Population and Area of Urban Local Bodies in Uttarakhand: 2001
Urban Local Body Population (2001) Area (sq. kms.) Nagar Nigam Dehradun 4,26,674 52.00 Nagar Palika Parishad Almora 30,154 7.36 Bageshwar 7,803 5.50 Bajpur 21,792 2.40 Bhowali 5,512 21.16 Chamoli-Gopeshwar 19.833 15.02 Dogadda 2,998 2.00 Gadarpur 13,645 3.40 Haldwani-Kathgodam 1,58,896 10.61 Hardwar 1,77,509 15.07 Jaspur 38,937 4.02 Joshimath 13,204 11.49 Kashipur 92,967 5.46 Khatima 14,335 8.40 Kichha 30,503 4.02 Kotdwara 24,947 2.59 Manglaur 42,584 1.32 Mussoorie 26,075 64.75 Nainital 38,630 11.73 Narendranagar 5,304 10.36 Pauri 24,743 42.00 Pithoragarh 44,964 9.00 Ramnagar 46,205 2.42 Rishikesh 66,189 10.00 Roorkee 97,516 8.11 Rudraprayag** 2,250 1.00
-66-
Third State Finance Commission
Urban Local Body Population (2001) Area (sq. kms.) Rudrapur 88,676 12.43 Sitarganj 22,027 2.00 Srinagar 19,658 9.00 Tanakpur 15,811 1.20 Tehri 25,423 37.05 Uttarkashi 16,218 12.02 Vikasnagar 12,486 9.00 Nagar Panchayat Badrinath* 1,682 2.01 Barkot 6,095 5.00 Bhimtal 5,874 3.95 Chamba 6,580 4.00 Champawat 3,959 5.00 Devprayag 2,769 8.75 Dharchula 6,324 15.19 Didihat 4,806 4.00 Dineshpur 8,856 5.00 Doiwala 8,043 8.00 Dwarahat 8,092 2.87 Gangotri* 605 8.00 Gauchar 7,303 15.00 Herbertput 9,243 8.80 Jhabrera 9,384 0.09 Kaladhungi 6,128 1.16 Karnaprayag 6,977 25.00 Kedarnath* 482 2.75 Kelakhera 7,782 4.50 Kirtinagar 1,040 1.56 Landhaura 16,036 0.82 Laksar 18,242 5.00 Lalkuan 6,524 4.25 Lohaghat 5,829 5.00 Mahua Dabra 6,103 5.00 Mahua Kheraganj 8,858 0.27 Muni-ki-Reti 7,880 1.81 Nandprayag 1,704 2.15 Shaktigarh 4,776 1.80 Sultanpur 7,714 4.00 *Non-elected bodies; **The area and population of Rudraprayag have been increased substantially since 2001; authenticated figures for the same are awaited. Source: TSFC questionnaire.
5.27 If we leave aside the three Nagar Nigams (population 4,26,674,158896 and 177509), we find that the Nagar Palika Parishads range in population from a low of only 2,998 (Dogadda) to a high of 97516 (Roorkee). This is indeed a very wide range. Similarly, the population of Nagar Panchayats too spans a rather wide range from a low of 1,704 in Nandprayag to a high of
-67-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
16,036 in Landhaura and 18,242 in Laksar. In fact, the population of Landhaura and Laksar exceeds that of at least 9 Nagar Palika Parishads (excluding Rudraprayag). On the other hand the population of the Census Towns ranges from a low of 3,739 (Dharchula Dehat) to a high of 22,947 (Nagla) and 24,921 (Raipur). The lowest is more than that of three Nagar Panchayats (excluding the three non-elected bodies of Badrinath, Gangotri and Kedarnath) and one Nagar Palika Parishad (excluding Rudraprayag), while the highest two are more than that of all Nagar Panchayats and 14 Nagar Palika Parishads. It is obvious that there is a need to revisit the classification of ULBs in Uttarakhand. Perhaps the results of the 2011 census may be the right occasion to do this. It may be mentioned that the census frame for 2011 has listed 42 census towns in Uttarakhand instead of the 12 in 2001.
5.28 According to the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, applicable to Uttarakhand, the minimum population prescribed for a Nagar Panchayat is 5000. From the above table it is clear that 6 Nagar Panchayats (Champawat, Devprayag, Didihat, Kirtinagar, Nandprayag, and Shaktigarh) and the Dugadda Nagar Palika Parishad do not fulfill this condition.
5.29 The area figures for ULBs seem to be quite erratic, and cannot be fully relied upon. Some of the NPPs and NPs are reported to have extremely small area which does not really make much sense. For instance, among NPPs Rudraprayag is reported to have an area of only 1 sq. km. and Tanakpur and Manglaur 1.20 and 1.32 sq. km. respectively. In the case of NPs the area of Jhabrera is shown to be only 0.09 sq. kms., of Mahua Kheraganj only 0.27 sq. kms. and of Landhaura just 0.82 sq. kms. At the other extreme there are Mussoorie with an area of 64.75 sq. kms., Pauri with 42 sq. kms. and Tehri with 37.05 sq. kms. The commission was informed that the reason for these anomalies is that when notifications were issued for constituting the municipal bodies their area was not clearly specified. It was to be determined by a subsequent survey, which has not taken place in most of the municipalities. To get round the problem posed by very low and relatively high area figures, the Commission, while accounting for area in deciding horizontal devolution, have decided to group the ULBs into different area bands, thereby moderating to some extent the impact of extremely low and high values for area.
5.30 The ULBs of Uttarakhand are governed by the municipal legislation of Uttar Pradesh viz. U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, which is applicable to the Municipal Corporations and U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, which is applicable to the Nagar Palika Parishads and Nagar Panchayats. Like the Zila Panchayats, municipal bodies of Uttarakhand also have a fairly long history.
-68-
Third State Finance Commission
Some of them, as mentioned earlier came into existence as far back as the end of the nineteenth century.
5.31 A comparison of the present status of ULBs with their status during the decades of the 1950s and 1960s shows that many important functions that the ULBs performed in the past have been taken over by the State Government. In the past, municipalities of Uttarakhand were running primary schools, dispensaries, veterinary hospitals, managing water supply and generating and distributing electricity (e.g. Mussoorie and Nainital) apart from solid waste management and sanitation, street lighting, maintenance of roads, parking, abattoirs, slaughter houses, cremation grounds etc. Now their functions are confined primarily to solid waste management/sanitation, street lighting and maintenance of some internal roads. A few ULB's are still maintaining public libraries and auditoriums and have assets like buildings, shops in municipal markets etc. Primary schools were taken over by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, water supply by the Garhwal and Kumaon Jal Sansthans (now the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan) and electricity generation and distribution passed into the hands of first the U.P. State Electricity Board and now the Uttarakhand Power Corporation. All properties and assets connected with these functions were also transferred to the department/agency to which the function was transferred without any compensation whatsoever being paid to the ULBs. In the past municipalities also had the power to approve building plans as per their bye-laws and ensure that the plans were followed in actual practice. This power has now passed into the hands of the Development Authorities in places where such authorities exist, or into the hands of the Prescribed Authorities in the remaining places, designated as Regulated Areas. The ULBs have also lost some important sources of revenue like octroi and toll tax, which were abolished by the state government. Development charges and fees for approval of building plans are also no longer available to them as these are now collected and kept by the Development Authorities or Regulated Areas. The ULBs, thus, have suffered a serious loss of independence which has eroded their status as self-governing institutions. Instead, they have been transformed into subordinate agencies of the State Government. The situation today is such that they cannot do many things without the permission of the State Government. They cannot make any appointments unless the State Government creates the posts and grants permission to fill them. Personnel in supervisory positions belong to centralized services, who are appointed and transferred by the State Government without reference to the ULBs.
5.32 Local Bodies in Uttarakhand (both urban and rural) have so far been unable to access plan funds from the state sector because they were not represented in the existing District Planning Committees. In the absence of
-69-
Chapter 5 : Status of Decentralised Governance
any allocations for the local bodies (rural or urban) the District Plans were merely a compilation of departmental schemes. This is so because the state government had failed to constitute District Planning Committees envisaged by Article 243ZD of the Constitution, which provides that at least four-fifths of the members of the Committee should be from among elected members of the District Panchayats and Municipalities in the district. Hopefully the situation will improve now as District Planning Committees, as mandated by Constitution, have now been constituted in the State.
5.33. There has been some noticeable progress towards decentralisation in urban governance in recent years. The motivation has been the reform conditionalities necessary for receiving funds under some Centrally Sponsored Schemes like the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and the Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) . Though only three cities (Dehradun, Hardwar and Nainital) are covered by JNNURM in Uttrakhand, the reform agenda under the programme has a state-wide application. The important reforms implemented in Uttarakhand as a result of these programmes include the constitution of District Planning Committees (DPCs), transfer of certain functions to ULBs, reduction in Stamp Duty, creation of Monitoring Committee under respective Mayor/President for O&M of water supply, reform of rent control, repeal of urban land ceiling legislation.
5.34 Many of these reforms have the effect of strengthening the decentralisation process. For instance the constitution of the DPCs, elections to which have been held recently, will give a voice to the ULBs and PRIs in a district in the formulation of the district plan. As a result district plans will now have a greater likelihood of addressing the needs and aspirations of various rural and urban settlements. Similarly, the creation of a Monitoring Committee under the Mayor/President for O&M of water supply, taking up of new schemes and inclusion of the evaluation of the Monitoring Committee in the annual reports of the concerned officers will also hopefully ensure that the Jal Sansthan works in coordination with the ULB. Another important measure relates to the implementation of a provision for public disclosure. This has been done through a Government Order and is to be incorporated in the proposed legislation for ULBs. Some reforms like reduction in the rate of Stamp Duty from 10% to 5% for men and 4.5% for women, though necessary from the larger perspective, are likely to have an adverse effect on the finances of the ULBs as they will now have to do without the 2% additional Stamp Duty that was being passed on to them. Other reforms to promote decentralisation are reported to be in process. These include transfer of some functions to ULBs, convergence of city planning functions in ULBs and enactment of Community Participation legislation. The JNNURM has made a
-70-
Third State Finance Commission
number of reforms mandatory for the mission cities and also prescribed a time-frame for their implementation. These relate more to efficiency in functioning of ULBs and provision of services to the citizens than to deepening the process of decentralisation on a state-wide basis.
5.35 As has been observed by the 13th Finance Commission there has been considerable progress in the empowerment of PRIs and municipalities since the Tenth Finance Commission first made a provision for explicitly supporting local bodies through grants, subsequent to the passage of the 73rd and 74th amendments to the constitution in 1993.
-71-