In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION)CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ______OF 2006In the matter of: xxxxxx Petitioner VERSUSUnion of India, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-11001 Through its Secretary.State Governments RespondentsWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION FORISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATEWRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DIRECTING ALL THE RESPONDENTSTO IMPLEMENT IN ITS TRUE SPIRIT, DIKTATS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE 73RD AMENDMENT DEVOLVINGVARIOUS FUNCTIONS TO LOCAL-SELF GOVERNMENTS, NAMELY,PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS IN KEEPING WITH THE PROVISIONSMADE UNDER PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ToHon’ble the Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India, New Delhi. The Petitioner above named, MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:1. That the Petitioner, being a Society registered under the SocietiesRegistration 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 ofCalcutta Municipal Corporation in 1924, he fought for, and won, the right to appoint his own chief executive officer within the interference of theProvincial Government. He then selected the 27 year old Subhash ChandraBose as his chief executive, whose outstanding work was appreciated by all. Subhash Bose went on to be the Mayor of Calcutta, President of theCongress 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 the74th amendment, Article 243ZD mandates that a District PlanningCommittee 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 suchCommittee 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 theConstitution 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 ElectionCommission are similar to those used in Article 324 relating to the centralElection 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 thePanchayati 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 thePreamble 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 theConstitutional 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 asAnnexure P.1 (colly).14. That in spite of the fact that enabling legislations have been passed byStates, 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 the73rd 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 theConstitution 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 thePanchayats Report – A Mid-Term Review and Appraisal” ( an official publication brought out in November 2006 by the Union Ministry ofPanchayati 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 theConstitution, 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 theConstitution, 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 AndhraPradesh 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 CentralGovernment. Examples of parallel bodies are the District RuralDevelopment 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 ManagementUnits 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 ofPRIs.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 throughPanchayat 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 aDistrict 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 theMunicipalities 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 suchCommittee, 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 PlanningCommittees 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 thePetitioner 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 theCentre 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 theConstitution 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 toPanchayats 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 toArticle 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 toPanchayats 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 thePetitioner 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 SIn the circumstances as stated above it is most respectfully prayed that thisHon’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 respectiveStates 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 thisHon’ble Court in public interest.FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTYBOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.Petitioner.ThroughAdvocate for the Petitioner. New Delhi. Dated:

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support