Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.07.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD)Nos.8680, 8902, 9036 & 13495 of 2022 and WMP(MD)Nos.6358, 6359, 6360, 6448, 6449, 6451, 6453, 6489, 6491, 6494, 9592, 9594, 9595 & 9627 of 2022 WP(MD)No.8680 of 2022 : -
Vilvathampatti Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.K.K.Ravichandran ... Petitioner v.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayatraj (SGS.1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, Chennai.
3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4.The Additional Collector /Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
5.The Block Development Officer, Thoppampatti Union, Dindigul District. ... Respondents WP(MD)No.8902 of 2022 : -
1.P.Muniyandi, President, Rapoosal Village Panchayat, Annavasal Union Panchayat, 2.B.Kannagi, Kalabam Village Panchayat Karambakkudi Union, 3.R.Allimuthu, Papudaiyanpatti Village Panchayat Kundrandarkovil Union, 4.S.Sivaranjani, Aravampatti Village Panchayat Gandarvakottai Union, 5.P.L.Ramasamy, Kovanur Village Panchayat Ponnamaravathy Union
6.K.Balu, 9A Nathampannai Village Panchayat Pudhukkottai Union
7.S.Moorthy, Kammangadu Village Panchayat Aranthangi Union ... Petitioners v.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayatraj (SGS.1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, Chennai.
3.The District Collector, Pudhukkottai District, Pudhukkottai.
4.The Additional Collector /Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Pudhukkottai District.
5.The Block Development Officer, Annavasal Union, Pudhukottai District.
6.The Block Development Officer, Karambakkudi Union, Pudhukkottai District.
7.The Block Development Officer, Kundrandarkovil Union, Pudhukkottai District.
8.The Block Development Officer, Gandarvakkottai Union, Pudhukkottai District.
9.The Block Development Officer, Ponnamaravathy Union, Pudhukkottai District.
10.The Block Development Officer, Pudhukkottai Union, Pudhukkottai District.
11.The Block Development Officer, Aranthangi Union, Pudhukkottai District. ... Respondents WP(MD)No.13495 of 2022 : -
1.Kombadi Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.G.Thangam, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
2.Eliyarpathi Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.M.Kannan, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
3.Valayankulam Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.P.Muthupillai, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
4.Vedar Puliyangulam Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.A.Kannan Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
5.Thanakkankulam Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Ms.P.Ananthi, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
6.Vadapalanchi Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Ms.M.Vanniselvi Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
7.Othai Alankulam Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.V.Prabhu Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
8.Melamathur Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Ms.M.Abirami Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
9.Karadipatti Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Ms.P.Balamani, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
10.Sakkilipatti Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.A.Thangamayan, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
11.Vilacheri Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.R.Murugan, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
12.Vadivel Karai Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Ms.M.Chandra, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
13.Melakuyilkudi Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Ms.V.Jaya Prabhu, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
14.Kusavankundu Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Mr.S.Pandivel Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.
15.Valayapatti Village Panchayat Rep.by its President Ms.V.Bakkiyam, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District. ... Petitioners v.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayatraj (SGS.1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, Chennai.
3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The Additional Collector /Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Madurai District, Madurai.
5.The Block Development Officer, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District. ... Respondents Common Prayer in WP(MD)Nos.8680, 8902, & 13495 of 2022 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS.1) Department dated 08.03.2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal in so far as the Clause 7.5 (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Guidelines is concerned and consequently to forbear the respondents from conducting the tender works by including the tender works of different village panchayats together as one package and for a direction, directing the respondents to restore the power of the petitioner in inviting tenders in respect of the basic works to be carried out in the village panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Preparation of Plans and Estimates for Works and Mode and Conditions of Contracts) Rules, 2007 and by way of extending the benefit of G.O Ms.No.139 Public Works (G2) Department dated
27.09.2021 within a time frame.
WP(MD)No.9036 of 2022 :-
S.M.Muniyandi, President, Sivagangai District All Village Panchayat Presidents Welfare Association, Reg.no.100 of 2020, Sivagangai. ...Petitioner v.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Fort St.George, Chennai.
3.The District Collector/Chairman of DRDA, Sivagangai Distrcit, Sivagangai.
4.The Assistant Director of Rural Development, and Panchayatraj, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ... Respondents Prayer in WP(MD)No.9036 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in GO.Ms No.23 of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 08.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to issue the sanction work AGAMT- II to the Village Panchayat through the Secretary of the village to carry out scheme of AGAMT-II scheme.
For Petitioners :
in WP(MD)Nos.8680 & 13495 of 2022 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for Mr.C.Venkateshkumar in WP(MD)No.8902 of 2022 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy in WP(MD)No.9036 of 2022 Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayaraj For Respondents Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by in all cases :
Mr.K.Balasubramanian Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
2.A number of village panchayat Presidents from quite a few southern Districts are before me. They challenge clause 7.5 (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the guidelines set out in G.O Ms.No.23, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 08.03.2022 as illegal. The said G.O was issued for according administrative sanction and to provide for release of funds for implementation of Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam – II for the year 2021-22. The Hon'ble Minister for Finance and Human Resource Management announced on the floor of the assembly that the estimated cost would be Rs.1200.00 crores The G.O talks of funding allocation, selection of village panchayts and funding pattern. The Annexure to the G.O contains elaborate and exhaustive guidelines. We are concerned only with clause 7.5 of the guidelines. It reads as follows :
“7.5 Tendering :
i)The works under AGAMT – II Scheme will be executed following the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Rules, 2000. Table – II of Notification – II in the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Preparation of Plans and Estimate of Works and Mode and Conditions of Contracts) Rules, 2007 vide G.O(MS)No.203, RD&PR Department dated 20.12.2007 will be followed for tendering.
(ii)The Additional Collector (Dev)/Project Director, DRDA shall be the Tender Inviting Authority. The District Collector/Chairman, DRDA shall be the Tender Accepting Authority.
(iii)e-Tendering should be followed for the works under AGAMT-II.
(iv)For the purpose of tendering, the works in a block shall be packaged component wise.”
The attack on the impugned clauses is anchored on twin premises :
a) the constitutional object of empowering local bodies to function as institutions of self-governance stands defeated and b) by packaging the works in a block component wise, the village level contractor is being prevented at the entry level from participating in the tender process.
The learned counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by me in WP(MD)No.8929 of 2020 etc., (P.Kaliyuganathan and ors v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors).
3.In my view reliance on Kaliyuganathan case is misplaced as it pertained to utilization of grant made available by the 14th Central Finance Commission. Since the guidelines issued by the Commission were not borne in mind by the State government authorities, I quashed the orders impugned in the said writ petitions. I quoted Article 243B and 243G of the Constitution and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 7 SCC 550 (Village Panchayat, Calangute vs. the Additional Director of Panchayat – II and ors). In the case on hand, it is the State government which has sanctioned the funds for implementing AGAMT-II. As remarked by the learned Additional Advocate General, he who pays the piper calls the tune. I interfered with the orders impugned in Kaliyuganathan case because they were not in consonance with the parent scheme proposed by the 14th Central Finance Commission which was the source of funds. In the instant case, the funding source is the State government and therefore it is entitled to prescribe the mode of implementation of the scheme and utilization of funds. Unless the same is shown to violate the rights of the petitioners, I cannot interfere.
4.The learned Additional Advocate General substantiated before me that the village panchayat Presidents as well as the Gram Sabhas are fully associated in the process of identification of works. The only grievance of the writ petitioners is that they do not have the power to call for tenders and finalize them. It is only the statute or the orders issued thereunder which can confer the power to be the tender inviting authority or tender accepting authority. Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Preparation of Plans and Estimates for Works and Mode and Conditions of Contra
