ORDER
B.S. Patil, J.
1. Petitioners are the members of the Zilla Panchayat, Shimoga. They have filed this writ petition challenging the guidelines dated 18.07.2006 issued by the 3rd Respondent-Director of Rural Infrastructure & Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Rural Development & Panchayathraj.
2. As per the impugned guidelines, the Chief Executive Officers of all the Zilla Panchayats in the State have been informed of a further amendment to the guidelines dated 01.04.2006 as amended on 11.05.2006 and 26.05.2006. The amendment now proposed by the impugned guidelines dated 18.07.2006 states that while preparing the priority list for the purpose of taking up road and bridge works, the Zilla Panchayats shall accept the priority list submitted by the Members of Legislative Assembly (for short the 'MLAs').
3. It is necessary to note here that the Government issued guidelines dated 01.04.2006 informing the Zilla Panchayats to receive the list of works of roads and bridges to be taken up from the concerned MLAs and thereafter prepare the priority list. This guideline came to be amended on 11.05.2006 by one more communication issued by the Director addressed to the Chief Executive Officers vide Annexure-B. As per the said communication it is stated that in view of differences that have cropped up in understanding the previous guidelines the Government has clarified the position. The clarification made states that the priority list has to be prepared by the Zilla Panchayats itself and while doing so the Zilla Panchayats have to receive the list of works from the MLAs and thereafter prepare as per the guidelines the priority list to be ultimately placed before the General Standing Committee which will eventually finalise the list. This clarification came to be further amended on 26.05.2006 vide Annexure-C stating interalia that the clarification made on 11.05.2006 is withdrawn and it should be read that while preparing the priority list the Zilla Panchayats shall consult the concerned MLAs. The matter did not stop here as the Government came forward with one more clarification/amendment to the guidelines on 18.07.2006 stating that while preparing the priority list instead of merely consulting the MLAs the priority has to be prepared as suggested by the concerned MLAs. It is further clarified therein that the Zilla Panchayats shall also have to find out if the works suggested by the MLAs are the works falling within the jurisdiction of the Zilla Panchayat or whether they pertain to other departments and whether the said works have been included in other projects. If it is found that the works suggested by the MLAs are included in any other projects the Zilla Panchayats shall request the MLAs to suggest alternative works to be taken up. It is this amendment made on 18.07.2006 by way of amended guidelines issued directing the Zilla Panchayats to accept the list submitted by the MLA that is challenged in this writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the effect of the impugned guidelines/directives issued by the State Government is to take away the power of the Zilla Panchayats which is a local authority to consider objectively the requirement and need of the people in the locality regarding the works to be taken up for constructing the roads/bridges on priority as the concerned MLA is given primacy to dictate to the Zilla Panchayats as to which roads/bridges should be taken up on priority for carrying out the work. This, in essence, cuts at the root of decentralization of power emphasized in the scheme of the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act enacted in the year 1993 and the constitutional mandate emanating from Article 243C and 243G is his submission.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents-1 and 3 who have filed the statement of objections contends that the State Government has the power to issue guidelines to the Zilla Panchayats to carry out their functions particularly when either the State Government or the Central Government provides funds for performing any functions specified in Schedule-III to the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. He further contends that the works pertaining to the roads and bridges being the one's specified in Schedule-III the guidelines issued from time to time by the State Government do not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction or competency. Further, drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph-6 of the statement of objections, he urges that the guidelines issued by the 3rd respondent as per the impugned communication does not divest the Zilla Panchayats of the powers to finalise the priority list. As per the guidelines the MLAs are vested with powers to submit their list of essential and emergent road works to the Zilla Panchayats for implementation under the 12th Finance Commission grants programme and their list also has to be taken along with the list prepared by the Zilla Panchayat and the Zilla Panchayat is vested with full power to finalise the final list and therefore he contends that the guidelines issued will not affect the authority of the Zilla Panchayats and do not have the effect of curbing their powers of the Zilla Panchayats. The object in issuing the aforementioned guidelines, learned Government Pleader submits, is only to have the scheme and work implemented in an appropriate manner so as to advance the public interest.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at this stage brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 17.07.2006 passed in W.P.No. 9544/2006(LB-RES) wherein while dealing with the grievance made by the President of Udupi Zilla Panchayat against the guidelines issued on 01.04.2006 directing the Zilla Panchayats to secure the list of developmental schemes and works from the MLAs concerned before preparing the final list, this Court in paragraphs-5 and 6 of the said order referring to the 73rd amendment to the Constitution and the object behind investing the local self Government with the powers and functions to carry out certain developmental activities, has held that the requirement to consult the MLAs of the concerned area by the Panchayats before finalising the list of developmental schemes and works cannot be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary guidelines issued by the State Government. This Court has further held that what has been said in the guidelines issued on 01.04.2006 was to permit the MLAs representing the constituency to submit the proposal for taking up any developmental activity on priority basis and it was for the Standing Committee to consider the said proposal and take a decision in the light of the circular issued.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the present amendment would now tantamount to investing full powers with the MLAs reducing the Panchayats and the Standing Committee to a mere agency to implement what has been directed by the MLAs concerned.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. It is seen from the object and purpose of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 that the Panchayats, be it the Grama Panchayats, the Taluka Panchayats or the Zilla Panchayats are invested with certain functions in recognition of the need for decentralization of power and of clothing the local bodies with a right to carry out developmental projects necessary for the local area in question so as to realise the concept of local self Government. Preamble to the 1993 Act states as under:
Whereas, it is expedient to replace the present enactment by a comprehensive enactment to establish a three-tier Panchayat Raj system in the State with elected bodies at the Grama, Taluka and District levels, in keeping with the Constitution Amendment relating to panchayats for greater participation of the people and more effective implementation of rural development programmes and to function as units of local-self Government
It is thus evident that the object and purpose of the enactment is (i) to decentralise the administrative powers which enable the Panchayat Raj Institutions function effectively as units of local self-Government; (ii) direct and greater participation of the people at the grass-root level and (iii) effective implementation of the rural development programmes to cater to the local needs of the people in an effective manner.
9. Though the State Government under the proviso to Section 184 of the Act is entitled to issue necessary guidelines wherever the State Government or Central Government provides funds for performance of any functions specified in Schedule-III and the Zilla Panchayats are required to perform such functions in accordance with such guidelines, it cannot be said that such guidelines can run counter to the very purpose and object underlying the decentralization of powers investing the Zilla Panchayats with the duties and functions to carry out developmental schemes by deciding the priorities in an objective manner depending upon the local needs and necessities. If the impugned circular is understood in its letter alone, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it would tantamount to giving primacy to the list submitted by the MLAs in taking up the road and bridge works. The Zilla Panchayats will be left with no option except to follow the priority list prepared and submitted by the MLA whether it is an urgent necessity or not and if other projects warranting preference and priority demanding immediate attention existed. The Government cannot issue such guidelines in the assumed exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 184 of the Act. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader and as stated in the statement of objections at paragraph-6, the intention of the State Government in issuing such a guideline is not to divest the Zilla Panchayat of its power to assess the priority after taking into account the list submitted by the MLAs. The effort appears to be to involve the MLA concerned and to have his views while taking a collective decision regarding the priority to be given to the work.
10. In this process undue importance to be given to one view in preference to the other affects the essence of collective decision making on objective assessments. It will also lead to unnecessary discontent and disharmony, ultimately resulting in setbacks to the work, as much of the time would be spent in finding out whose view shall be given priority instead of taking up works of urgent necessity on priority. The concerned MLA being the representative of the large segment of the area is certainly entitled to suggest the works to be taken on priority as he represents the voice of the people of the locality and knows the priorities in the locality. The essence therefore is of a collective approach and not of any primacy to anybody. The primacy if any shall be solely to the urgent public need. The guidelines, if any to be issued by the State Government shall have to address this objective. If the same is kept in mind the State Government's guidelines of collecting the priority list form the MLA would certainly subserve the purpose.
11. The guidelines issued ultimately emphasise the need to ascertaining the priority works. If the same is kept in mind, it cannot be said that the list submitted by one shall prevail over the others. In my view, the right way to understand the guidelines issued is to hold that while the concerned MLAs are entitled to suggest and submit their priority list it is open to the local bodies namely the Zilla Panchayats to examine the same objectively and take a decision by considering the list submitted by the MLAs. Any other interpretation will subject this guideline to the attack of being arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to the very purpose and object for which such power is given to the Government under Section 184 of the Act. In that view of the matter, in the light of the discussion made above, I pass the following: