Patna High Court Upholds Bihar Govt's Solar Light Scheme Implementation For Rural Electrification, Says State Checked Corruption

Justice Harish Kumar observed, “The object of the Solar Light Scheme to ensure rural electrification in the Panchayat is clear and loud that the village streets remain well lighted during the night in the villages imbibing the sense of security and lessening the inconvenience and discomfort to the populace and to ensure development in all the fields.”

“It is to be worth noted that due to lack of availability of resources such as financial and human resources, the Ward Implementation and Management Committee has been constituted to extend the assistance to the Gram Panchayat in carrying out the development schemes, which shall function under the supervision of Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and the Mukhiya is the ex officio Chairman of the Public Works Committee under Section 25(1)(vi) of the Act, 2006. The requirement of expert agency, which is technically equipped, empowered and competent is inevitable to achieve better result on the point of quality or price/cost of equipment and render proper facilities and technical support in the implementation of the scheme,” Justice Kumar added.

Justice Kumar further said, “This Court finds substance that the corruption as has been highlighted in the earlier stage of installation of solar lights by the Panchayats has compelled the State to take initiatives to put a check and balance to make the scheme successful for rural populace is one of the backdrop of issuance of letters issued by the Panchayati Raj Department is in no way eschewing rights of the Panchayat rather, responsibility has been directed to be shouldered collectively by all.”

The court's decision came in response to a petition filed by Siwan Zila Mukhiya Sangh, challenging the Principal Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department's directive regarding the installation of Solar Street Lights in Gram Panchayats of the State.

The petitioner, sought the following reliefs:

1. Annulment of a letter issued by the Principal Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department, directing the installation of Solar Street Lights in Gram Panchayats of the State. The letter empowered the Bihar Renewable Energy Development Agency (BREDA) to choose the agency for this purpose. Additionally, the letter specified that 75% of the total installation cost would be covered by funds from the Panchayats, recommended by the 15th Finance Commission, and the remaining 25% from funds recommended by the State Finance Commission.
2. Declaration that Panchayats, defined as Institutions of Self-Government under Article 243B and Article 243G of the Constitution, are entitled to powers and authority necessary for functioning as self-governing bodies. This includes the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice, as well as the implementation of schemes related to matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. The petitioner contended that the impugned notification issued by the Principal Secretary directly interfered with the autonomy of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerning the Eleventh Schedule matters. Consequently, the notification was argued to be unlawful and should be set aside.
3. Issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondent Authorities to refrain from issuing further instructions that undermine the authority of the Panchayati Raj Institution, particularly concerning the implementation of schemes related to matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. Such instructions were asserted to be contrary to the objectives of the Seventy-Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, in conjunction with Article 243(d) and 243G of the Constitution of India.

The case was previously heard by the Coordinate bench of the High Court, which instructed the Principal Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department to submit a supplementary affidavit, taking into account the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel.

A question was raised for the respondents to address: whether the State Government has taken any steps to ensure the independence of the Panchayati Raj institution by granting financial autonomy, or if additional checks and balances are still necessary.

Furthermore, the respondents were directed to clarify whether any institution can truly thrive without financial independence. The court highlighted concerns that the financial control seems to lie solely with the State authorities, leaving the elected Panchayat representatives in a passive role.

Advocate General P.K. Shahi emphasized that the government's intention was not to withhold funds rightfully belonging to Gram Panchayats; however, based on past experiences, it was essential to introduce some checks and balances to ensure the smooth execution of the program.

He further stated that to maintain transparency in the scheme, technical management tools such as Remote Monitoring System, Centralized Monitoring System, People-Oriented Management through Interactive Voice Response System, and Centralized Grievance Redressal Cell have been implemented to effectively monitor the system.

Additionally, he pointed out that the installation of solar light systems requires expert supervision and guidance. Village institutions lack the expertise needed to assess the quality and cost of equipment. Therefore, guided development through entities like BREDA is essential for achieving better results. BREDA, established to promote schemes and non-conventional energy sources, has been nominated as the nodal agency for remote village electrification programs. It is technically proficient and empowered to analyze the technical viability of solar light equipment.

Moreover, he submitted that the Panchayats lack an established system to guide them in selecting appropriate service providers/agencies.

Advocate General highlighted the functions, facilities, and technical support provided by BREDA as outlined in letter no. 5465 dated 17.09.2021. He emphasized that the implementation of the schemes, similar to GST, follows a cooperative federalism model involving collaborative efforts from BREDA, Wards, Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO), and the District Level Coordination Committee. All these entities play crucial roles in the actual implementation process.

The Court after giving anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties stated that it is well settled that in our constitutional scheme every power is coupled with duty under the constitutional scheme inherently implies/restrains, the exercise of power with utmost circumspection and responsibility.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the significance of Panchayati Raj as a grassroots democratic institution established to promote economic and social justice at the local level, ensuring active participation of citizens in development, planning, and execution processes. The Amendment Act of 2017 aimed to enhance public involvement through the introduction of the Ward Sabha scheme.

Within a country governed by the Rule of Law, the Court stressed the necessity of checks and balances on conferred powers to prevent arbitrariness. Authorities holding power are obligated to utilize it purposefully and within the bounds of the law. The Court's role is to scrutinize the functioning of these checks and balances, striking down any arbitrary actions and ensuring that the exercise of power aligns with legal requirements.

Regarding the objectives of the Panchayati Raj institution, the Court highlighted that social justice and economic empowerment are its primary goals. The XIth Schedule of the Indian Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of Panchayats, encompassing 29 subjects, including rural electrification and electricity distribution. Gram Panchayats are tasked with implementing government schemes, identifying beneficiaries, and levying local taxes when necessary.

The Court asserted, “The apprehension of the petitioner that vide memo No. 7325 dated 29.07.2022, the Panchayats have been conferred with the power for grant of administrative sanction of the estimates prepared by the BREDA is only an act of post office giving seal to administrative sanction is wholly misconceived as the power to grant always includes power to refuse, if the same suffers from any illegality or appears to be unjustified.”

“Further the submission of the petitioner that the fund of Gram Panchayat shall be utilized for implementation of Mukhyamantri Rural Solar Light Scheme has also no substance as under the 15 th Finance Commission, the Centre has released the fund for the State of Bihar, which will be used for installation of solar light and for the said purpose 75% of the fund has to be transferred in the account of Gram Panchayat, which fund would be released only after administrative sanction of Gram Panchayat. Rest 25% of the fund, from the State Plan Fund is to be allocated to District Panchayati Raj Officer for payment to the executing agency,” the court added.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns regarding certain restrictions imposed on Panchayats, such as designating the District Panchayat Resource Officer (DPRO) as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. However, the Court deemed these restrictions necessary to prevent the misuse of public funds, considering past irregularities in the implementation of solar schemes. The Court clarified that these restrictions did not infringe upon the Gram Panchayat's authority but rather aimed to ensure the scheme's proper execution for the benefit of the Gram Panchayat itself.

The Court emphasized the importance of judicial review in upholding the rule of law in governmental activities. It stated that the impugned letter, dated 17.09.2021, which entrusted the power to the Waste-to-Energy Infrastructure Management Company (WIMC) for selecting locations and vested the power to BREDA for choosing service providers and managing funds, was not arbitrary or illegal.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents' actions, implementing the solar light scheme, were consistent with the amended provisions of the Amendment Act, 17 of 2017. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality and conformity of the respondents' actions with the applicable laws.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner/s:Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam withMr. Awnish Kumar,Ms. Anita Kumari, Mr. Kumar Gaurav andMr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocates

Counsel/s or the State:Mr. P. K. Shahi, A.G. withMr. Ajay, GA-G,Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 5 andMr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 131

Case Title: Siwan Zila Mukhiya Sangh through its Chairman Ajay Bhasker Chauhan vs. The State of Bihar

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18566 of 2022

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement