IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7801 of 2009(U)
1. P.T.KANNAPPAN, PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
3. KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
5. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (SC,ST),
6. SECRETARY, MINISTRY STATISTICS AND
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SATHISAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/04/2009
O R D E R
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