IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.8161/2013 (LB-RES) Between:
1. S.N. Chinnappa, S/o Narayanappa, Aged about 53 years, Santekallahalli Post, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
2. Ms. Umadevi, W/o Satyanarayana Reddy A.V., Aged about 50 years, Gidatakondihalli, Aanuru Post, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
3. N. Veena Gangulappa, W/o V.Gangulappa, Aged about 35 years, Bhamaharahalli, Raguttahalli Post, Munganahalli Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
4. Manjulamma Muninrasimhappa, W/o muninarasimhappa, Aged about 40 years, Thinakallu Village, Ullappanahalli Village, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
5. Smt. Shivalila, W/o Rajanna, Aged about 45 years, L. Mutakadahalli, Keshavara Post, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
6. Smt. Amaravati Krishnappa, W/o M.V. Krishnappa, Aged about 45 years, Palakare Village and Post, Chelluru Hobli, Mittemari, Bageypalli, Chikkaballapura District.
7. M.V.Krishnappa, S/o Venkatarayappa, Aged about 49 years, Muddarahalli Village, Varukulanda Post, Guddibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
8. Radhamma, W/o Gangadharappa, Aged about 35 years, Meenakanagurike, Manchanahalli Hobli, Gowribidanuru Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
9. Chinnappaiah, S/o Kalappa, Aged about 50 years, Kamaganahalli, Tondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanuru Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
10. Keshava Reddy, S/o Narasimha Reddy, G.Kotoor, Nagargere Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
11. Padmavati, W/o Manjunath, Kachemavhenahalli, Hosur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
12. P.V. Raghavendra Hanuman, S/o Venkataswamy Naik, Aged about 35 years, D.Palya, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. ... Petitioners (By Sri Subramanya R., Advocate for M/s. Ashok Haranahalli Associates, Advocates) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Dept. of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Dr. Ambedkar Veedi, Bangalore – 560 001, Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. State of Karnataka, Dept. of Finance, (Vidhana Soudha), Dr. Ambedkar Veedi, Bangalore – 560 001, Represented by its Principal Secretary.
3. Zilla Panchayath, Chikkaballapura, Chikkaballapura District, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.
4. C.R. Narasimha Murthy, S/o Ramalinga Reddy, Aged about 46 years, President of Zilla Panchayath, Chandandur, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
5. N. Ashwathappa, S/o late J. Nagappa, Aged about 50 years, Vice – President of Zilla panchayat, Beechaganahalli Village, Somenahalli Hobli, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
6. N.V. Srirama Reddy, S/o J. Venkataswamy Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Nandanvana, Mettahalli Post, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
7. K.M. Satiesh, S/o Doddamuniyappa, Aged about 40 years, Kambadahalli Village, Melur Post, Shidlagata Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
8. S.M. Narayanaswamy, S/o Munibrayappa, Aged about 60 years, Sonnehalli Village, Devaramalluru Post, Shidlagata Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
9. Shek Moula, S/o Shek Ibrahim, Aged about 55 years, Kaivara Village and Post, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
10. P.N. Munegowda, S/o Narayanappa, Aged about 40 years, Dibbur Mujarapuradagadde Village, Dibbur Post, Chikkaballapura District.
11. Harinatha Reddy, S/o Venkataravanappa, Aged about 40 years, Palyakere Post, Cheelur Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
12. Smt. Rani G. Venugopal Reddy, W/o Venugopal Reddy, Aged about 40 years, G. Bommasandra Village, Thondebavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, 13. Smt. Bharani Venkatesh, W/o N.C. Venkatesh, Aged about 30 years, Nallagadarenahalli Village, Balekuntahalli Post, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura District.
14. Smt. Y.M. Anitha Ravindra Reddy, W/o P.N. Ravindra Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Perasandra Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapura District.
15. Smt. N. Manjula Venkatesh, W/o C. Venkatesh, Aged about 35 years, Kanithahalli Village, Kondenahalli Post, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura District.
16. Smt. Narayanamma, W/o Venkatesh, Aged about 35 years, Kottapalli Village, Gubur Hobli, Bhagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
17. Smt. S.N. Shobha, W/o Jayaprakash, Aged about 45 years, Sadali Village, Shidlagatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
18. Smt. Savitramma, W/o Munishami, Aged about 35 years, Gottapalli Village, Somanathapura Post, Bhagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. ... Respondents (By Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1 & R-2; Sri B.D. Anil Kumar, Advocate for R-3; Sri Deviprasad Shetty, Advocate for M/s Jayakumar S. Patil & Associates, Advocates for R-4 to R-18) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the government order issued by the respondents dated 15.12.2012 vide Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved on 18.12.2018 and coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, the Court, made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners who are members of the Zilla Panchayat, Chikkabalapura, have filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the validity of the Government Order dated 15.12.2012 whereby the responsibility of disbursing and utilizing funds for developmental purposes had been entrusted to the President of the Zilla Panchayat.
2. The funds were made available pursuant to the budgetary allocation in the year 2012-2013 and a sum of Rs.2 Crores which was in the form of an untied grant had been allocated to the President of the Zilla Panchayat for utilization. The impugned notification specified that this arrangement was limited to the year 2012-2013.
3. This was stated to be in supersession of the earlier Government Order, which provided that the funds referred to above, would be allocated in the form of a “Zilla Panchayat Development Fund” in accordance with the notification dated 25.09.2012. The said notification further provided that the action plan for the developmental activities relating to utilization of funds that were allocated, would be prepared taking note of the recommendations advanced by the Gram Sabha and provided for certain guidelines as regards utilization of funds.
4. The disbursal of funds to the President of the Zilla Panchayat in accordance with the notification dated 15.12.2012 was objected to by the Finance Department, which had in fact opined that the funds ought to be released in favour of the Zilla Panchayat.
5. The petitioners state that, consequent to the objections raised by the Finance Department on 25.09.2012, prior to passing of the impugned notification, the State Government had ordered that the grants allocated to the Zilla Panchayat President were to be treated as funds allocated to the Zilla Panchayat.
6. The petitioners state that in departure to the Government Notification dated 15.09.2012, the impugned Government Order had once again provided that funds would be allocated to the President of the Zilla Panchayat.
7. The petitioners had contended as follows:
The impugned notification passed despite the objections raised by the Finance Department was a mala-fide action and has been resorted to, to meet political ends;
That the allocation of grants in terms of Section 208 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, contemplates grant to the body i.e., the Zilla Panchayat and hence, the impugned notification allocating funds to the President of the Zilla Panchayat was impermissible;
That, the constitution of the Zilla Panchayat in terms of Section 160 of the Act would consist of elected members and no distinction as such could be made between the elected President and the members and hence, the Government Order providing for allocation of funds to the President of the Zilla Panchayat was impermissible;
That, the impugned order is against the spirit of de-centralization of power envisaged by the Constitution for Local Self Governments, by centralizing the power of disbursal of funds in the President.
8. On the other hand, the counsel for Zilla Panchayat, Chikkabalapura as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, have filed their statement of objections and have sought to controvert the contentions of the petitioners.
9. The State has filed its statement of objections contending that the present arrangement pertained only to the Financial Year 2012-2013 and that detailed guidelines relating to the disbursal and utilization of funds as per the Notifications dated 29.10.2011, 23.09.2011 and 15.07.2011 impose sufficient restrictions and provide for safeguards relating to the utilization of funds, which are to be strictly adhered to, by the President of the Zilla Panchayat.
10. It has been submitted that as per the notification dated 29.10.2011, an action plan for the utilization of grants ought to be prepared by the President of the Zilla Panchayat in accordance with the applicable guidelines and the Chief Executive Officer would then examine the said proposal and implement it after appropriate satisfaction. It has been further pointed out that the notification dated 23.09.2011 provided for setting apart 60% of the grants for utilization for the purposes specified in the notification dated 15.07.2011 and the remaining 40% was required to be set apart for the purposes specified under Sections 58, 145 and 184 of the Act, subject however, to the restrictions enumerated in the notification dated 15.07.2011.
11. It is further submitted that the notification dated 15.07.2011, contains clear guidelines as regards permissible and prohibited activities relating to the utilization of funds. Hence, it is contended that there was no unguided discretion vested in the President of the Zilla Panchayat as regards disbursal and utilization of funds.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also takes a similar stance as that of the State in his submissions. The said respondent states that the decision as reflected in the impugned notification was taken in light of the commencement of work under the Action plan of the year 2012-2013 and that the present arrangement was only as regards the year 2012-2013. It is pointed out that, as the action plans were prepared and works were taken up for execution and completed already, the impugned notification was passed only as regards the year 2012-2013. Hence, it is contended that the petition does not survive for consideration. It is further submitted that the action plans pursuant to which funds were being utilized were approved by the resolutions of the Zilla Panchayat. In fact, the said respondent points out that the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat had approved the action plan by official memorandum dated 13.03.2013. The details of the work executed by the Zilla Panchayat has been detailed as per the statement of the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, Chikaballapura, enclosed at Annexure - R1. The utilization of an amount of Rs.6 Lakhs by the District’s Welfare Officer for the differently-abled and Senior Citizens, is enclosed as Annexure-R2. Hence, it is contended that the petition be dismissed taking note of the materials placed on record and in the absence of the petitioners having made out any case relating to misutilization of funds.
13. It is relevant to note that this Court by order dated 13.02.2013 while issuing notice to the respondents, had granted an interim stay on the impugned order dated 15.12.2012 insofar as it related to the Chikkaballapura Zilla Panchayat. It was also clarified that the interim order would not be a bar for utilization of the amount if the funds are allocated to the members of the Zilla Panchayat to undertake activities as per the plans prepared by them. It was also stipulated that the amount could not be utilized solely for the execution of the Action plan of the President of the Zilla Panchayat. This Court, by an order dated 07.03.2013 while considering the application, I.A. No. 2 of 2013 filed by the impleading respondents seeking vacation of the interim order, taking note of the approval of the work by the Gram Sabha and the Chief Executive Officer had vacated the previously granted order of stay.
14. In light of the statement of objections filed by respondent No.3, it is clear that an amount of Rs.1,75,87,000/- has been spent as regards various works carried out in accordance with the action plans. It is stated that out of the amount of Rs.1.94 Crores that was allocated, an amount of 18.13 Lakhs remains unutilized and has been remitted by the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department to the Zilla Panchayat.
15. The details regarding utilization of the grant for the year 2012-2013 have been detailed in the statement of the Panchayat Raj Engineering Division enclosed at Annexure-R1. The said statement also reveals an estimate of the works, the expenditure incurred, the stage of the work commenced and the amount remaining unpaid for the works executed. The statistics reveal that the work that was commenced as per the Action plan has been completed and funds to the extent of Rs.175.87 Lakhs has been disbursed as against an estimate of Rs.175.87 Lakhs. Accordingly, for the work completed, funds have been utilized in entirety as per the estimate.
16. To embark upon an exercise of adjudicating as to whether the Government had the power to allocate funds to the President of the Zilla Panchayat under the scheme of the Act at this length of time and in light of statements at Annexures-R1 & R2, would amount to an exercise in futility. The Courts ought not to embark upon issuing futile writs. Once funds allocated under the impugned order have been utilized, the question that would remain, is to ensure that funds have been utilized in accordance with prevalent guidelines.
17. In light of the materials placed on record by respondent No.3, no purpose would be served in adjudicating the validity of impugned notification dated 15.12.2012. The arrangement of allocating funds to the President of the Zilla Panchayat and permitting him to utilize the funds is valid only for the year 2012-2013 and the reversion to the earlier arrangement of allocating funds to the Zilla Panchayats for the future years also needs to be taken note of.
18. The counsel for respondent no. 3, has also clarified at para 6 of the statement of objections that, “the administrative approval for the action plan was given by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat, Chikkaballapura by official memorandum dated 13.03.2013.”
19. Taking note of all the above facts and events, it becomes clear that no purpose would be served by embarking upon adjudication of the impugned notification. However, needless to state, it is open for the petitioners to point out mis-utilization if any, of the funds allocated in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the law. It is also to be noted that some of the petitioners themselves have been the recipients of funds disbursed to the President of the Zilla Panchayat.
20. Accordingly, question of judicial review of the impugned notification in the light of developments referred to above, does not arise.
Keeping open the contentions as regards the legal issues, the petition is disposed of, subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct-mhp