IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19591 of 2008 Between: 1 V.Venkata Reddy, S/o. Buchireddy, R/o. Marrigudem Village, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 Mallu Lakshmi, W/o. nagarjuna Reddy, R/o. Rayaniguda Village, Surya Peta Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 N.Venakt Rao, S/o. Narsimha Rao, R/o. Chetla Chinnaram Village, Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 N.Bikshamaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Domalapalli Village, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5 K.Yadaiah, S/o. Pichchaiah, R/o. Marrigudem Village, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6 Ch.Padma, W/o. Indraiah, R/o. Arjalabavi Village, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7 S.Venkata Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, R/o. Pagidimarri Village, Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 8 P.Nagaiah, S/o. venkaiah, PAZZUR Village, Tipparti Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9 Musku Yadaiah, S/o. venkaiah, R/o. Pedda Suraram Village, Tipparti Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief Comissioner, Commissionerate of Panchayat Raj Rural Employment Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Zilla Parishat, Represented by tis Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Office, Nalgonda District. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents to set aside the proceedings dated 25.06.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and further contrry to the BRGF guidlines, Consequently seeking a direction to the respodnent to distribute BRGF fund to all local self govenmetn such as Grama Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishads as per guidliness and GOS. Issue for the prupose and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.19591 of 2008 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 3-6-2009. Counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent. Though the matter appears under the caption of interlocutory, the Counsel on record made a request for the final disposal of the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of finally. 2. Sri V.Raghu, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had pointed out to the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also in the counter affidavit and further pointed out to the relevant material papers and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case appropriate directions to be given in the light of the guidelines. 3. Per contra, Sri Elisha, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent would maintain that since the respondents are following the requisite guidelines while distributing the BRBF Funds, no further directions need be issued. 4. Heard the Counsel. Perused the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the counter affidavit as well and also the material papers placed before this Court. 5. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents to set aside the proceedings dt.25-6-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further contrary to the B.R.G.F. guidelines and consequently seeking a direction to the respondent to distribute B.R.G.F. funds to all local self-Government such as Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishads as per the guidelines and G.Os., issued for the purpose of and pass such other suitable orders. 6. It is stated that the Government of India designed the Backward Region Grand Funds (hereinafter called ‘B.R.G.F. funds’) to redress regional imbalances in development. The fund will provided financial resources for supplementing and converging existing developmental in flows into identified Districts. Guidelines were also issued for implementation of the scheme under B.R.G.F. These guidelines are applicable to the States and Districts that are fall within the purview of Part-IX of the Constitution. Nalgonda District is one among the list of Districts covered under the scheme. The Panchayats at the village, Intermediate and District Level referred to in Part-IX of the Constitution will undertake planning and implementation of the programme in keeping with the letter and spirir of the Article 243-G, while the Municipalities referred to in Part IX-A will similarly plan and implement with the programme in Urban areas in conformity with the letter and spirit of Article 243W, r/which Article 243 ZD of the Constitution of India. Programs identified for implementation under the fund will be selected through peoples participation, particularly through Gramsabhas in Rural areas. Participatedly plan will be prepared in each Panchayat would be consolidated into the District plan by the District Planning Committeeconstituted under Article 243ZD of the Constitution. Further it is stated that several Districts will be received a fixed minimum amount of Rs.10 crore per annum under the Scheme. Whereas the funds released as on 31-3-2008 of the Central Government rules 27.05 Crores for Nalgonda District. The guidelines for inter-se allocation of B.R.G.F. funds to Panchayat / Urban Local Bodies (ULB) within the Districts is stipulated. As per this, each State will indicate the normative formula that will be used for allocation of B.R.G.F. fund to each Panchayat and ULB (Excluding Capital cities/Cities with population of million) share of each local self- Government institution within District, within the overall allocation made for each category, the norms governing the inter-se share of each Panchayat or Municipalities concern. It is further stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued several guidelines under various G.Os., from time to time for utilization and distribution of B.R.G.F. funds. The spirit of all the guidelines is that the funds shall be distributed to each Gram Panchayat. Whereas the 2nd respondent allotting funds only for some villages and leaving other villages without granting any funds. An instance for this partisan attitude is evident for the proceedings dt.25-6-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. These proceedings are in respect of Nalgonda Assembly constituency of Nalgonda District. There are 80 villages in Nalgonda Assembly constituency apart from Nalgonda Municipality. Whereas allotment of funds is made only to 35 villages. Leaving nothing to 48 villages. Thus the action of the 2nd respondent issusing the proceedings dt.25- 6-2008 is contrary to the guidelines mentioned above. Representation dt.19-8-2008 is submitted to the 1st respondent and representation dt.19-8-2008 is submitted to the 3rd respondent and representation dt.11-8-2008 is submitted to all the respondents representing the grievance of the petitioners through their organization Sthanika Samsthala Praja Prathinidhula Sangham. Further it is stated that the 1st respondent is nodel department at the State level responsible for supervision over the preparation and implementation of District plans (rural) in all the Districts. The department will be responsible for release of funds, inter-se distribution of funds among the Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats, issue of administration sanction etc. The District Planning Committee will meet once in a month for review of implementation of Panchayat Raj Institution and Urban Local Body plans. The first respondent is incharge of the District Planning exercise in all the Panchayat Raj Institution under the Zilla Praja Parishad and he will be responsible for implementation of plans in all the three tiers of Panchayat Raj Institutions in the District. Thus even distribution has to be made to all Gram Panchayat as per the requirements of the respective Gram Panchayats. The respondents being authorities of State are acting contrary to the spirit of the scheme and provisions of the guidelines and thereby depriving several villages from the benefit of the scheme. Hence, it is just and necessary to issue a direction to the respondent to set aside the allotment of grants made in proceedings dt.25-8-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines and consequently seeking a direction to the respondent to allot the funds as per the guidelines. It is also averred that the scheme is basically provided to strengthen the local bodies in the backward regions of the State. The Constitutional guidance under Article 243G relating to implementation of scheme for economic development and social justice in the local bodies. As an institution of self-Government, the Panchayats should have adequate fiscal capability to be an institution of self-Government. The impugned action of the respondents in discriminating while allotting funds to some Gram Panchayats and leaving the other gtp without any funds, result in reducing the strength of the institution of self-Government and depriving the structure at the village level from the participatory democracy. Hence, the inasmuch action is liable to be set aside and the respondents are required to be will be declared to follow the guidelines while distributing the B.R.G.F. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is averred in para 4 that the Backward Region Grant Fund is the scheme of Central Government, under which the Central Government allocate the funds to various States for the development works in the rural areas. This scheme introduced by the Central Government in the financial year 2007-2008. In pursuance of the grants allocated by the Central Government, the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department has issued certain guidelines for preparation of plans for releasing the funds to the Backward region Scheme for which G.O.Ms.No.142, dt.18- 4-2008 has been issued under which the guidelines were issued to the concerned officers and also issued instructions for the purpose of utilizing the funds. It is also stated that for the year 2007-2008 B.R.G.F. plans restricted for 13 Districts, plans were prepared according to the guidelines. The funds have been allocated to the Panchayat Raj Institutions, they are:- 1) Construction of Anganwadi centers and providing drinking water facilities in Anganwadi centers. 2) Construction of Gram Panchayat Office Buildings and providing drinking water facilities in Anganwadi centers. 3) Construction of Health sub-centers. 4) Construction of RLU Buildings. 5) Electrification of un-electrified SC/ST habitations. 6) Construction of Welfare Hostels. In the G.O., it is also mentioned the names of Districts for which the budget is allocated under the scheme. Further it is stated that the total amount for Nalgonda District for the year 2007-2008 is Rs.25 Cr., but the amount was released by the High Power Committee is only Rs.24.35 lakhs. According to the guidelines issued by the Panchayat Raj department, the works were prepared by the Gram Panchayat and same would submitted to the concerned Mandal Praja Parishad and thereafter the list of works prepared by the Mandal Praja Parishads will be submitted to the Zilla Praja Parishads, Nalgonda, along with the list submitted by the Gram Panchayats. Thereafter the Zilla Praja Parishad has to take approval from the District Planning Committee and it would be placed before the High Power Committee for releasing the funds. This is the procedure laid down in the G.O., which was followed by this respondent scrupulously. It is further stated that the allegations of the petitioner is the B.R.G.F. funds were not allotted to their particular village and this allegation is unsustainable. Being the representatives of concerned villages and Mandal Parishads, it is their duty just to know about the work executed in their concerned villages without there being any information and without knowing any realities alleging the official respondents because they are politically motivated. The petitioners are blaming the responsible officers without any basis is ridiculous. Under the scheme all the petitioner villages were covered the following works are executed in the petitioners’ villages:- 1) 1st and 5th petitioners i.e., Sri Venkat Reddy and Sri K.Yadaiah of Marrigudam village for fixing the electrification in the SC colony of Rs.50,000/- for estimated loss and also for extension of pipelines for drinking water Rs.1,20,000/- spent. 2) The 2nd petitioner i.e., Mallu Lakshmi, Rayagudem village, Suryapet Mandal, fitting of electrification Rs.40,000/- of estimated cost and extension of pipeline for drinking water Rs.80,000/-. 3) The 3rd petitioner – N.Venkat Rao, Chetla Chennaram village, Kandal Mandal, fitting of electrification in SC colony Rs.40,000/- of estimated cost. 4) The 4th petitioner – N.Bikshamaiah, Dommalapalli village, Nalgonda Mandal, fitting of electrification in S.T.Colony Rs.50,000/- of estimated cost. 5) The 6th petitioner – Smt.Ch.Padma, Arjalabavi, Nalgonda Mandal, construction of Anganwadi building estimated cost of Rs.3 lakhs. 6) The 7th petitioner – Sri S.Venkat Reddy, Pagidimarri village, Kangal Mandal, fitting of electrification in SC colony Rs.40,000/- of estimated cost. 7) The 8th petitioner – Sri P.Nagaiah, Pazzur village, Tipparthi Mandal, fitting of electrification in SC colony Rs.50,000/- of estimated cost. 8) The 9th petitioner – Sri M.yadaiah, Pedda Suraram village, Tipparthi Mandal, construction of compound wall in primary school Rs.90,000/- of estimated cost and balance work of construction of ZPHS Building and compound wall Rs.2 lakh estimated cost. It is also further stated that the funds were utilized according to the schedule and guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.142, dt.18-4-2008. According to the G.O. it is also mentioned that while preparing the draft plan, the urban local bodies will taken into account. The District component of the departmental plans regarding the allocation of B.R.G.F. funds to Urban Local Bodies for the year 2007-08, the required funds out of the planned budget shall be released from the High Power Committee development fund, soon after the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department obtains the consolidated master plan in respect of the Municipalities which are not covered under any schedule as already decided by the High Power Committee. This arrangement was made for the year 2007-2008 only. For the year 2008-2008, the ULB’s are covered under B.R.G.F. schedule. Hence, the allegations of the petitioners are false and baseless. It is also stated that this is the schedule introduced by the Central Government in pursuance of the amended Art.243(G) of the Constitution of India. The intention of the amended Article of the Constitution is for the economic strength of the rural villages. The petitioner have stated that the allocation of the funds by this respondent is discriminating allotting funds to some Gram Panchayats only is denied. As already stated supra, there is no discrimination in allotting the funds under the B.R.G.F. schedule. The funds were utilized in the District according to G.O., issued by the Panchayat Raj department and also approved given by the High Power Committee. Hence, it can be said that the present Writ Petition is petition is politically motivated and there are no merits in the Writ Petition to grant any relief to the petitioners as sought by them. 8. The statistical data relating to the benefits, the number of works and the other particulars also had been placed before this Court and further it is stated that the 2nd respondent – the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad Office, is duty bound to supervise these aspect. The contents of G.O.Ms.No.74, dt.1-3-2008, the statement showing the allocation of B.R.G.F. among the Panchayat Raj Institutions for the year 2007-2008 of the relevant Districts, G.O.Ms.No.142, dt.18-4-2008 of the Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.III) Department and the relevant portions thereof also had been pointed out. Guideline No.5 dealing with Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad specifies as hereunder:- “Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad is incharge of the District Planning exercise in all the Panchayat Raj Institutions under the Zilla Praja Parishad and is the convener of the Technical Advisory Group at the District level. He will be responsible for monitoring and review of preparation, scrutiny, consolidation and effective implementation of plans for all the three tiers of PRIs in the District. He may have to organize interactive sessions at the District level with the former and present peoples’ representatives, community based organizations, official functionaries, stake holder committees, NGOs and the like. They may have to be sensitized on District planning, participative process and motivate them to take part in the planning process – a privilege conferred on them. This exercise shall help in identifying the critical gaps at the District level and also the felt needs that are to be focused upon while drafting the plan at the District level. He is also responsible for the inter-se distribution of B.R.G.F. funds among all the PRIs in the District and issue of Administrative sanctions, Audit of Accounts including taking up of social audit, Submission of replies to Audit objections at the District level etc.” G.O.Ms.No.448, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Election & Rules) Department, dt.3-10-2007 and the relevant guidelines thereunder also had been specifically pointed out. Likewise, G.O.Ms.No.449, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Election & Rules) Department, dt.3-10-2007 also had been pointed out. The availability of resources to finance the plans for the relevant issues also had been placed before this Court and different proceedings and also the different representations by the Sarpanchas Forum of the District also had been placed before this Court. 9. The specific stand taken by both Sri Elisha, the standing Counsel and also the Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj is that the respondents have been observing the guidelines and following the procedure and no injustice is being caused to any of the petitioners whatsoever and certain further submissions also had been made that the Writ Petition had been thought of to derive political advantage. It is needless to say that the 2nd respondent is bound to follow the procedure and observe the guidelines in this regard. It is also further needless to say that this is the specific stand taken by both the Standing Counsel and also the Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. In the light of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition be disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to look into the grievances of the petitioners and take all appropriate steps to redress such grievances in the light of the guidelines governing the field. This Court does hope that the 2nd respondent would discharge this obligation in true letter and spirit. 10. Accordingly, with the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana August, 2009 smr