Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW)
RAJAN ROY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Naitik Party Thru. Pankaj Tewari And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India Thru. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. And 9 Ors - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.12743 of 2014
Decided on : 26-09-2024
For the Appellant : Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Rohit Tripathi
For the Respondent: C.S.C., A.S.G.
The Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojna is constitutionally valid and promotes village development without encroaching on State powers.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 243G - Public Interest Litigation challenging the Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojna - The scheme is not an encroachment on State powers but a collaborative effort for village development, involving local governance structures. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 14)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The court emphasized that such petitions should not be filed against schemes that serve larger public interests without substantial evidence of conflict. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to invalidate guidelines of a Central Government scheme, claiming it infringed upon State and local governance powers. The respondents argued the scheme promotes holistic village development and is constitutionally valid.
Findings of Court:
The court found no conflict between the Central and State Governments regarding the scheme's implementation, affirming its public interest objectives.
Issues: The main issues were whether the scheme encroached upon State powers and the appropriateness of the Public Interest Litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the scheme aligns with constitutional provisions and promotes local governance, thus dismissing the petition.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Per: Rajan Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. Chandra Bhushan Pandey along with Ms. Tripti Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India and Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This is a Public Interest Litigation which was filed way-back in 2014 seeking following reliefs:
"(i) an order/direction/writ declaring the guidelines issued by the Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, dated 11.10.2014 as invalid (Annexure no.1) and issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to implement the same;
(ii) an order/direction/writ to the State Government (opposite party nos.3 and 4) to devolve power upon the Village Panchayat in respect of all the 29 items given in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution.
(iii) an order/direction/writ declaring invalid the identification of village as Adarsh Gram under the SAGY scheme and utilization of public fund for such Gram on the direction of the Member of Parliament and the public fund so spent be realized from the personal assets of the member of Parliament;
(iv) an order/direction/writ to recover the public fund spent on Adarsh Gram by the MPs from his personal assets;
(v) to issue any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(vi) to allow this petition with cost."
3. The contention of Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in nutshell, was that the Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojna of the Central Government is an encroachment on the powers of the State Government and the Village Panchayat. He invited our attention to Part IX of the Constitution of India dealing specifically with - "The Panchayat". He specifically invited our attention to Article 243G of the Constitution of India to submit that by the said provision power had been given to the State Government and the State Legislature in respect of Panchayats and this power and jurisdiction is exclusive, therefore, formulation of a scheme by the Central Government in respect of a matter which is exclusively within the domain of the State Government and the Village Panchayat is in direct conflict with the provisions of the Constitution and the powers and jurisdiction of the State Government and the Village Panchayat. He also invited our attention to Schedule 11 of the Constitution of India which is referable to Part IX to drive home the point that the 11th Schedule contains the subjects on which exclusive jurisdiction has been vested upon the State Government and the Village Panchayat which is being encroached by the scheme in question framed by the Central Government. He invited our attention to various paragraphs in the writ petition and the grounds taken therein in support thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, submitted that the scheme was a step in furtherance of social and economic planning pertaining to villages. Members of Parliament having been elected from the constituency to have a role to play in the development of their constituency, therefore, the scheme which, in fact, envisages realization of the dream of Mahatma Gandhi regarding a model village, is not only permissible constitutionally but also desirable. The scheme itself is in the larger public interest, therefore, to file a Public Interest Litigation challenging the same is incongruous on the face of it. He took us through various guidelines of the scheme which are on record to submit that this is not a case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that validity of Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) scheme has already been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh vs. Union of India and others; (2010) 5 SCC 538. The same analogy applies her
