IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7801 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- P.T.KANNAPPAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA PULAYAR MAHASABHA, REGISTER NO.920, AMBUNADU SAKHA, MALAYIDOMTHURUTH P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VAZHAKKULAM. 5. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (SC,ST), KAKKANAD. 6. SECRETARY, MINISTRY STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR,. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7801 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct respondents 1 and 6 to conduct an enquiry in the matter of implementation of MPLADS scheme and to direct them not to implement the scheme for the benefit of the members of the scheduled caste who are residents of the Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath before conclusion of the enquiry. 2. Petitioner is the president of the Kerala Pularyar Mahasabha Association, which is said to consist of about 250 members. The Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath area comes within the erstwhile Muvattupuzha Parliamentary constituency. The issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the implementation of a scheme called Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) formulated by the Government of India in November,2005. Exhibit P1 is the extract of the guidelines governing the implementation of the scheme. In this context, it is to be mentioned in terms of Exhibit P1 guidelines, governing the scheme, 15% of the fund is to be W.P.(C) No. 7801/2009 2 spent for the upliftment of areas inhabited by members of Scheduled Castes. It is seen from pleadings in the writ petition, that Shri P.C Thomas, M.P submitted Exhibit R1(a) letter to the first respondent, recommending the work of construction of retaining wall and for bathing ghat at Kulathekattukulam (pond) in Ward 1 of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath. In Exhibit R1 (a), it is also mentioned that the required amount of Rs.10 lakhs is to be sanctioned from the SC fund of the Scheme. 3. Respondents submit that on receipt of Exhibit R1(a), feasibility report [Exhibit R1(b)] was obtained, which inter alia states that more than 51% of the beneficiaries of the project recommended are those belonging to Scheduled Castes. It is stated that this was also reported in Annexure R1(c), a Social Map submitted by the 5th respondent. It is also stated that the 5th respondent gave Annexure R1(d) list of beneficiaries and that Exhibit R1(e) is yet another Feasibility Certificate. Exhibit R1(f) and Exhibit R1(g) are stated to be Social Map and another list of beneficiaries. 4. Thus the proposal made by the M.P was processed in W.P.(C) No. 7801/2009 3 the manner as stated above. Thereafter, by Exhibit P2, the second respondent convened a meeting of the beneficiaries of the project. Accordingly by Exhibit P3, a beneficiary committee was constituted and the petitioner complains that in the beneficiary committee, there was no representation to the Scheduled Castes. Petitioner submits that the first respondent granted administrative and technical sanction as per Exhibits P4 and P5. 5. At that stage, petitioner submits that they filed Exhibit P6, an objection before the first respondent, mainly against including the project in the SC quota and pointing out that there are more deserving projects which can be sponsored by the MP concerned. In spite of it, when further proceedings were continued for executing the project, the writ petition has been filed with the prayers mentioned above. 6. Main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the work is for renovation and that the same is prohibited in Exhibit P1 guidelines. It is also his contention that as per the guidelines, the M.P can only give a priority list as contemplated in Annexure II thereof recommending the project W.P.(C) No. 7801/2009 4 and that no positive direction as contained in Exhibit R1(a) can be issued. Yet another contention raised is that until the final stages of processing of the matter, there was nothing to indicate that the project was to be executed in the quota earmarked for SC, but however, at later point of time, the project was diverted and included SC quota. 7. All these contentions are sought to be contradicted by the learned Special Government Pleader, referring to the statement filed by the first respondent and also the documents annexed to the said statement. 8. The first point canvassed by counsel for the petitioner is that the work in question is a prohibited one on the ground that it is renovation or maintenance that is undertaken . This contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is mainly relying on Annexure II to Exhibit P1 guidelines, which inter alia provides that all renovation and repair works, except heritage and archaeological monuments and building with specific permission from the Archaeological Survey of India are prohibited under the Scheme. While examining correctness of W.P.(C) No. 7801/2009 5 this contention, I should refer to the documents produced by the learned Special Government Pleader along with the statement filed by him. The first document is the proposal made by the M.P vide Exhibit R1(a), where the work is described as construction of retaining wall. Nature of work given in Exhibit R1(a), is reiterated in further communications also, which include those relied on by counsel for the petitioner also. Therefore, if the work executed is one of construction of a retaining wall, it will not be correct to say that such work is one in the nature of a renovation or maintenance. A work of renovation or maintenance necessarily contemplate the existence of a structure to which works for its improvement are carried out. In this case, the work in question is the construction of a retaining wall for the first time and if that be so, it cannot be said that such a work is one of renovation. It is true that in certain correspondences including Exhibits R1(c) and R1(e), the word “Naveekaranam” has been used. But however, I do not want to rest my conclusion entirely on this terminology used. For the reasons stated above, since the work in question is the construction of a new retaining wall, that W.P.(C) No. 7801/2009 6 is not one coming within the list of prohibited works contained in Annexure II to Exhibit P1 and therefore, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner only to be refuted and I do so. 9. The second ground raised by counsel for the petitioner is that a Member of Parliament can make only a recommendatory proposal with a priority list. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is made referring to Annexure III to Exhibit P1 guidelines. Annexure III is the format for recommending eligible works. It is true, this Annexure enables the Member of Parliament to make his recommendation to the first respondent and prima facie, I am also inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that once recommendations are received, it is for the first respondent to consider the recommendation with due application of mind and decide on its implementation. A reading of statement and documents annexed thereto would give the impression that the respondents have proceeded on the basis that they cannot make any departure from the recommendation made by the Member of Parliament. Although, I cannot agree with this submission entirely, for the reason that para 3 of W.P.(C) No. 7801/2009 7 Annexure III to Exhibit P1 makes it clear that if sanction is delayed or denied, District Authority is bound to intimate the same to the M. P concerned. This clearly means that the District Authority has an active role in the decision making process and is not expected to simply accept any recommendation that is made by the M.P. 10. However, in this case admittedly recommendation was made and an extensive study carried out and beneficiary committee was constituted and on that basis work in question has already commenced. Further going by records produced by the Government Pleader, it is seen that more than 51% of the beneficiaries are from schedule castes itself. If that be so, I should not upset the project already commenced for the reason that the scope of Exhibit P1 has been misconstrued by the implementation agencies. This is for the further reason that the bona fides of the official respondents is not in dispute. 11. Other contention raised by the petitioner was that in Exhibit P2 or Exhibit P3, there is no inclusion of the members of the Scheduled Caste community. In my view, this complaint W.P.(C) No. 7801/2009 8 cannot be entertained for the reason that the petitioners have no case that they attended the meeting of the beneficiaries convened by the second respondent, as per Exhibit P2 notice. Admittedly, by ExhibitP3 committee was constituted, from among those who have participated in the meeting. Since the petitioner did not participate in the said meeting, they cannot have any complaint in this regard. In view of all the above, I do not think that this Court will be justified in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm