WP(C) 860/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior counse, for the petitione rs, and Ms. V.L. Sinha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel, for the r espondent No. 4, and Mr SK N Mohammad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 2. The review and variation in the schemes/ projects, prepared in t he District Development Plans for Minority Concentration Districts, in respect o f the District of Kokrajhar, lies at the root of this writ petition made under A rticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Government of India, Ministry of Minority Affairs, has formu lated a programme, which is named and styled as Multi-Sectoral District Developm ent Plans (in short, ’MSDP’) for Minority Concentration Districts. Requisite gui delines for, inter alia, identification of the districts, which require, and can derive, benefits from the said programme, and implementation of the programme h ave been issued by the Central Government. The guidelines perceive constitution of District Level Committees for preparation of various schemes/ projects for t he districts concerned and there is a State Level Committee, which is the author ity to revise and/or modify the schemes/projects, which may be submitted to the State Level Committee by a District Level Committee. 3A. In respect of the district of Kokrajhar, the District Level Comm ittee selected some schemes/ projects under the Multi-sectoral District Developm ent Plan and forwarded the same to the State Government by their letter, dated 29.10.2008. The schemes/ projects, so forwarded, were considered and adopted by the Multi-sectoral District Development Plan of the district of Kokrajhar in i ts meeting held in this regard. The records do not reveal that any dissatisfacti on had been expressed, in the said meeting, by any of the members of the Distric t Level Committee to the resolutions, which the District Level Committee so adop ted. A letter was, then, received, on 12.10.2008, by the Office of the Deputy Co mmissioner, Kokrajhar, from the Joint Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of Welfare and Minority Developments, indicating to the effect that some member s had expressed dissatisfaction over the selection of schemes/ projects. Follow ing the letter aforementioned, a meeting of the District Level Committee was, ev entually, held on 13.01.2009. The minutes of the meeting were signed on 13.01.20 09. The meeting revised the earlier schemes/ projects and the revised schemes/ p rojects were submitted to the State Government for necessary action. 4. Challenging the review of the schemes/ projects, which had been adopted by the District Level Committee, in its meeting, on 29.10.2008, and the variation in the schemes/ projects, which the subsequent meeting of the District Level Committee held on 13.01.2009, has suggested, this writ petition has been filed by 4 (four) persons, who come from the area, which falls within the area t o which the said programme, namely, MSDP relates to. 5. In brief, the grievance of the petitioners is that the schemes/ projects, which had been submitted by the District Level Committee, on 29.10.200 8, ought to have been maintained and the changes, made therein, were in violatio n of the guidelines, issued, in this regard, by the Central Government and it wa s on the intervention of the Minister, Agriculture, Government of Assam, who had chaired the meeting of the District Level Committee, that the schemes/ projects came to be revised. Thus, the revision of the schemes/ projects were entirely o n political considerations and the revision was in utter disregard of the guidel ines, which govern the MSDP. The petitioners, therefore, have sought for cancel lation of the schemes/ projects, which have been submitted by the District Level Committee by its minutes, dated 13.01.2009, and also for directions to be issue d to the respondents/ authorities concerned for implementation of the schemes/ p rojects, which had been adopted at the District Level Committee’s meeting on 29. 10.2008. 6. Resisting the submissions, made on behalf of the petitioners, th e State respondents as well as the private respondents have filed their affidavi t contending, inter alia, that the revision of the schemes/ projects was legal a nd necessitated by consideration of such factors, which had not been taken into account by the District Level Committee, while preparing its schemes and plans i nasmuch as the schemes/ projects, adopted by the District Level Committee, in it s meeting, held on 29.10.2008, were confined to only such activities, which cov er subject-matters of PWD (Roads) Department and do not include those subject-ma tters of the other Departments of the Government, which undertake activities for the welfare of the people. The revision of the schemes/ projects, therefore, a ccording to the respondents, is wholly valid and it was not illegal, on the part of the Minister, Agriculture, Government of Assam, to take part in the process of re-drawing and/or revising the schemes/ projects inasmuch as the Minister als o comes from the district of Kokrajhar. 7. Repelling the contentions of the respondents, the petitioners ha ve submitted that the guidelines do not envisage any role for any person, other than the members of the District Level Committee, in the preparation of the sche mes/ projects, and, that apart, the schemes/ projects were reviewed on political considerations. The role of the Minister, in this regard, was, according to th e petitioners, unconstitutional, de hors the guidelines and the original schemes / projects, meant for welfare of the people, ought not to have been revised for distributing various agriculture implements to individuals instead of ensuring t hat the schemes/ projects remain aimed at benefiting the people at large and no t some selected individuals. 8. Coupled with the above, it is pointed out, on behalf of the peti tioners, that the earlier schemes/ projects had concentrated on providing benefi ts to groups of people; whereas, the schemes and plans, which have, now, been pr epared, substantially advance individual interest and, particularly, the interes t of the Minister concerned inasmuch as, pointed out the petitioners, the scheme s/ projects, now, revised, are as follows: Sl. No. Name of Schemes/ Projects Tentative Amount (Rs. in lakhs) 1. Distribution of tractors (SHG/ FMC) 110 nos. of units 288.71 2. Distribution of Power Tiller (5 Nos. SHG/FMC) 150 Nos. of unit 243.00 3. Distribution of LLP ( 5 Nos. SHG/ FMC) 200 Nos. of Pump Set 40.00 4. Distribution of M.B. Plough at 100% subsidy 1.50 5. Distribution of hand sprayer 100 % subsidy individual 3500 nos. of unit 52.50 6. Input delivery system (distribution of Cycle, Tela for marketing of frui ts and vegetables, 1000 unit 100.00 7. Organic manure (establishment of Vermicompost production unit) 54.75 8. Improved package of practices of Rice, Wheat, SRI & Hybrid demonstration (100 % subsidy) 36.00 9. Institutional Training Programme of women SHG 5.60 10. Construction of brick canal at Mestabari 25.09 11. Construction of Daosri bill w RCC drop structure at Nakargaon 15.58 12. Management and Administrative cost 7.27 Total 870.00 9. While considering the rival contentions, raised on behalf of the parties, what needs to be noted is that MSDP is a plan, as already indicated ab ove, to ensure that the benefits of the schemes and programmes of the Government reach relatively disadvantaged segments of the society. The guidelines, as the concerned Ministry has issued, for implementation of the programme, envisage for mation of District Level Committees. The guidelines do not prohibit the District Level Committees from obtaining the views of others, who may not be members of the District Level Committee, but who come from the same area or whose views may help the District Level Committees in selecting schemes/ projects to advance th e cause of the disadvantaged segments of the society with the help of the welfar e schemes/ projects of the Government. The responsibility of the District Level Committee, however, remains, as correctly contended, on behalf of the petitioner s, to prepare schemes/ projects for the development of the area for which the Di strict Level Committee is constituted. 10. Though it has been contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that such schemes or projects, which advance individual benefits, are not covered by the MSDP, a microscopic examination of the guidelines aforementioned indicate t hat the schemes/ projects, which give benefit to individuals in the society, are not completely outside the purview of the programme. Moreover, there is no exp ress bar for the District or the State Level Committee to take up such schemes/ projects, which give benefits to individuals. Para- 1.7 (iii) of the guidelines , which is relevant in this regard, reads as follows: The provision for basic amenities such as pucca housing, safe drinking water s upply, water closet toilets and electricity for each household may be made. 11. Thus, Clause 1.7 (iii) clearly shows that such schemes/ projects , which provide pucca housing to individuals, is not outside the purview of the programme, namely, MSDP. The petitioners are, however, correct to the extent t hat the emphasis of the programme is not targeting individual beneficiaries, but on developing infrastructure and also developing social and economic conditions of the disadvantaged groups of people in general. This is clearly discernible f rom what Clause 4.5 of the guidelines contains inasmuch as Para 4.5 reads as und er: There would be no change in guidelines of any existing scheme under implementa tion in such districts for which this programme would provide additional funds. As far as possible, the focus of the programme would be for providing appropriat e social and economic infrastructure rather than targeting individual beneficiar ies. In case schemes for individual benefits are taken up under the programme, t here shall be no divergence from existing norms for selection of beneficiaries f rom the list of BPL families in the district, so that benefits from the addition al funds flow to all BPL families and not selectively. 12. What emerges from the above discussion is that the schemes and p rojects, which the District or the State Level Committees select, shall be for d evelopment of infrastructure and for improvement of the social and economic cond ition of the disadvantaged groups of people, in the society, at large rather tha n targeting individual beneficiaries. Considered in this light, it becomes clear that the distribution of tractors, power-tillers, LLP, etc., to individuals, ca nnot be given priority under the MSDP, though such distribution is not entirely illegal or outside the purview of the MSDP. In short, even the distribution of s uch implements/ machinery shall be, preferably, on the basis of such a schemes, which are cooperative in nature. 13. From what have been pointed out above, it can be gathered that i t is for the members of the District Level Committee to, primarily, formulate sc hemes/ projects. In the process of preparing such projects, they shall take int o account the opinion of the Government and other persons, whose views may be re levant for the purpose of preparing and formulating such projects. Participation , therefore, of a Minister, in the meetings of the District Level Committee, can not per se be said to be illegal unless there are materials available to show th at the Minister(s) concerned unduly influenced the decision for personal gain, i n individual interest, and so on. What is necessary to note, as has already bee n pointed out above, is that the schemes and projects, which are required to be prepared by the District Level Committees, have to concentrate on providing bene fits to groups of people rather than targeting individual beneficiaries. 14. In the backdrop of what have been indicated above, what attracts the attention is that in the case at hand, subsequent to the forwarding of the schemes/ projects by the District Level Committee, by its letter, dated 29.10.20 08, aforementioned, a letter, as already mentioned above, was received by Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, from the Joint Secretary to the Governme nt of Assam, Minorities Welfare and Development Department, Assam, informing the latter that some dissatisfaction had been expressed on the selection of schemes / projects by the District Level Committee, as reflected by their letter, dated 29.10.2008. The letter, so issued by the Joint Secretary, reflects as if the sc hemes/ projects, which were sought to be reviewed and revised, had been prepared and forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, and not by the members of the District Level Committee; whereas, the members of the District Level Committ ee were participants of the meeting held on 29.01.2008 and the minutes of the me eting do not reveal any disagreement. 15. The question, therefore, is as to what had led to the making of the representation expressing dissatisfaction over the selection of the schemes/ projects. According to the State respondents, as revealed from their affidavit , subsequent to the receipt of the letter of the said Joint Secretary, a letter was prepared, on 7.01.2009, by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, to be sent to the Joint Secretary, in order to obtain from the latter the repre sentation on the basis of which the letter had been issued by the said Joint Sec retary. No representation was, however, received by the Deputy Commissioner, K okrajhar, from the said Joint Secretary. In fact, to a pointed query, made, in t his regard, by this Court, the learned Government Advocate submits that the repr esentation is not in the record. This Court, therefore, does not know as to whe ther the representation, which is claimed to have been received by the said Join t Secretary, had, as a matter of fact, been ever received by the said Joint Secr etary or not. 16. Be that as it may, what cannot be ignored is that suddenly, on 1 2.01.2009, a note was prepared, which reveals the fact that the In-charge, Deput y Commissioner, Kokrajhar, sent letters, on 12.01.2009, to the members of the Di strict Level Committee of Kokrajhar and the Head of Departments of the district concerned informing them that a meeting for review of the schemes/ projects, whi ch had been prepared under the MSDP, would be held on 13.01.2009 and, on that ve ry day, i.e. on 12.01.2009 itself, a letter was also issued to the Minister, Agr iculture, WET & BC, inviting her to attend meeting on 13.01.2009. Why meeting ha d to be convened on 13.01.2009 or why the letters were issued to the members of the District Level Committee informing them of the meeting to be held on 13.01.2 009 and/ or why a letter was sent to the Minister, Agriculture, remains a myster y. 17. Be that as it may, it is in the meeting, so held on 13.01.2009, that the earlier schemes/ projects were revised and changed. The reason has rem ained unexplained by the respondents as to what had prompted the in-charge, Depu ty Commissioner, Kokrajhar, to change his mind and not to insist that the repres entation, received by the said Joint Secretary, be furnished to the Deputy Commi ssioner, Kokrajhar, before the meeting of the District Level Committee is conven ed to review the selected schemes/ projects, so as to know as to what the object ion against the already selected schemes/ projects was. 18. Situated thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that it wa s, at the instance of the Minister, Agriculture, that the schemes and projects, which had been adopted by the District Level Committee on 29.10.2008, were inter fered with and revised. 19. This Court has already made it clear that it does not see comple te bar for persons, occupying chairs of the Ministers, to express their views in the matters of formulation of schemes/projects, under the MSDP, but schemes and projects cannot be adopted solely at the behest of a Minister and according to the wishes of a Minister even if the Minister comes from the area, which falls w ithin the territorial area of activities of the District Level Committee concern ed. However, the schemes and projects, in the light of the MSDP, have to cove r as many minority areas as possible and cannot, therefore, remain confined to a particular area or a particular department. 20. In the case at hand, therefore, the mere fact, that the projects /schemes, relating to the Agriculture Department, Government of Assam, have been included within the schemes/projects of MSDP, in the district of Kokrajhar, by the District Level Committee, would not make selection of the schemes/projects, in the meeting, held on 13.01.2009, wholly illegal or untenable in law. 21. One must, however, bear in mind that Para 19 of the guidelines i nsists on observing transparency in the implementation of the programmes inasmu ch as Para 19 of the guidelines clearly states that in order to ensure that th e information about developmental schemes being implemented reaches the ultimate beneficiaries, i.e., the targeted beneficiaries, there is a need to ensure grea ter transparency and publicity of the information. No wonder, therefore, that Pa ra 19 makes it clear that it is necessary to give publicity in local media and a lso through website in respect of all sanctioned schemes/projects. In the case a t hand, however, as already discussed above, it is the transparency, which is la cking. 22. Because of the what has been discussed and pointed out above, th is Court is of the view that the schemes and projects, which the District Level Committee have revised in its meeting, on 13.01.2009, need to be looked into, an d re-examined, by the State Level Committee in the light of the guidelines afore mentioned and the discussions held above. 23. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the in terest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respond ent No. 1 herein to ensure that the schemes/ projects, which have been forwarded to the State Level Committee by the District Level Committee, in terms of the m eeting held on 13.01.2009, be re-examined, without any bias or prejudice, by the State Level Committee, in the light of the guidelines aforementioned and the ob servations of this Court made hereinabove. While making such re-examination, as has been directed, the State Level Committee shall also take into account the ea rlier schemes / projects, which were forwarded to the State Government, in terms of the meeting of the District Level Committee held on 29.10.2008. Since the schemes/ projects, conceived under the MSDP, are time-bound projects, the State respondents, particularly, the respondent No. 1, shall ensure that the State Lev el Committee re-examines the matter anew and do the needful in accordance with l aw at the earliest. 24. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition s tands disposed of. 25. No order as to costs.