JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. We have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Advocate General, Nagaland assisted by Ms. Bhuyan, learned Counsel representing the State of Nagaland, i.e. Appellants in W.A. Nos 91/04 and 92/04 and State Respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 93/04 and 94/04 as well as Mr. H. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in W.A. Nos. 93/04 and 94/04. Also heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Longiem, the learned Counsel appearing for the private Respondents in all Writ Appeals. 2. All these four Writ Appeals have been directed against the common judgment and order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 209(K)/03 and W.P.(C) No. 215 (K)/03 preferred by the Private Respondents as Writ Petitioners therein (hereinafter called as the Private Respondents'). As the Writ Appeals before us have raised common question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. Writ Appeals No. 91/04 and No. 92/04 arise out of W.R(C) No. 209(K)/03 when Writ Appeals No. 93/04 and No. 94/04 are against W.P(C) No. 215 (K)/03. W.P(C) No. 209/03 relates to 6 (six) Assembly Constituencies under Mokokchung District namely 23 Impur 22 Arkakong, 25 Mongoya, 26-Aongienden, 27-Mokokchung town and 29 Jangpetkong wherein the private Respondents are the electors. In W.P.(C) No. 215(K)/03, the Writ Petitioner there in, Akhoto Angami is the elector in Ghashpani- II Assembly Constituency under Dinapur District. 4. The issue precisely raised in this Writ Appeals is whether the Government nominees appointed by the Government to the District Planning and Development Boards (for short 'the DPDB') and Sub-Divisional Planning and Development Boards (for short 'SDPDB') constituted for the purpose of carrying out a programme popularly known as Local Areas Development programme (for short 'LADP) responsible for achieving the objectives like development of critical areas under the various Assembly Constituencies of the State of Nagaland with mass participation of people in development works as contained in the guidelines formulated for implementation of schemes under LADP can submit schemes either to the DPDB/SDPDB or State Planning Board (for short 'SPD') directly. 5. For proper appreciation and effective adjudication of the issue in lis, it would be necessary and appropriate to refer the factual matrix of the case in a short compass. 6. In order to implement various schemes under LADP, the Govt. 5. For proper appreciation and effective adjudication of the issue in lis, it would be necessary and appropriate to refer the factual matrix of the case in a short compass. 6. In order to implement various schemes under LADP, the Govt. of Nagaland through its Planning and Coordination Department (Palming Branch) framed guidelines providing the concept and object of LADP, structure pertaining to constitution of 'DPDB' and SDPDB in respective Districts and independent Sub-Divisions prescribing the function of DPDB and SDPDB including the role and function to be played by the Adviser and Govt. Nominees to be appointed by the Government. The guidelines also carries Calendar of Action for implementation of LADP for each year commencing from 30th June to the month of April and May next. It is specifically provided therein that 31st August shall be the date for identification and selection of scheme and preparation of technical estimate made submission of scheme along with technical estimates to DPDB/SDPDB as grass-root level by the village councils/local bodies/members of the DPDB/SDPDB. 7. The provisions relevant for the decision of the issue involved in this case, envisaged in the guidelines may be referred to as under: II. Structure: A) District/Sub-Divisional Planning and development Boards shall be constituted in all District/independent Sub-Division headed by ADC consisting of all ML As, all the District Heads of Departments with Deputy Commissioner as Chairman in the DPDB and Additional Deputy Commissioner in SDPDB. The government may also appoint Advisers and Government Nominees as deemed necessary from time to time. b) The District/Sub-Divisional Planning and Development Boards shall be the nodal agencies to scrutinize the schemes submitted to the DPDB/SDPDB, to ensure strict conformity to the LADP guidelines, coordinate, supervise and oversee the proper implementation of LADP projects and schemes. c) Technically qualified personnel drawn from CAWD/Blocks/DRD As and from the concerned Departments in the District/Sub-Division shall be entrusted with the preparation of Technical estimates. These technically qualified personals shall also render technical and expert guidance during the various stages of implementation of projects. d) The Plans prepared by the DPDB/SDPDBs shall be submitted to the State Planning board for examination and clearance. e) The DPDB/SDPDPs shall constitute Committee/Committees consisting of members selected from amongst the members of DPDB/SDPDB to verify and certify completion of projects and schemes executed under LADP. In each Committee, technically qualified members shall also be included. 2. d) The Plans prepared by the DPDB/SDPDBs shall be submitted to the State Planning board for examination and clearance. e) The DPDB/SDPDPs shall constitute Committee/Committees consisting of members selected from amongst the members of DPDB/SDPDB to verify and certify completion of projects and schemes executed under LADP. In each Committee, technically qualified members shall also be included. 2. DPDB/SDPDB will prepare a village profile of every village by obtaining data through the concerned Departments. The format will be prepared by the Planning Department with the help of the Department of Economics & Statistics, GIS and NIC Network 3. Heads of development Departments in the district shall submit to the DPDB their respective Annual Works Programme/Action Plan for information and reference of the members. This is required with a view to avoid duplication and overlapping of programmes and schemes. 4. A certain percentage of the funds may be reserved for preparation of Project Reports and conduct of Techno-Economic survey for the District/Sub-Division. 5. While local priorities must receive due importance, if should be ensured that the District/Sub-Division Plans are not be a duplication/replication of the schemes of the State level Plans or at the cost of overriding State priorities. 6. The State Planning Board shall ensure that the schemes submitted by the DPDB/SDPDB are in accordance with the LADP guidelines that there is no overlapping and duplication of schemes implemented by the various departments. 7. Once the schemes are approved by the SPB, the Chairman of the DPDB/SDPDB will issue the work orders. Annexure-II to the guidelines provides Sequence of Procedure which reads as under: 1. Identification, selection of schemes. Preparation of technical estimates and submission of schemes along with technical estimates to the DPDB/SDPDB by the village Councils/Local bodies/members of the DPDB/SDPDB. 2. Detailed examination/discussion and finalisation of schemes by DPDB/SDPDB. 3. Submission of the approved schemes to Planning Department for obtaining SPB clearance. 4. Issue of Administrative Approval by the Planning Department. 5. Issue of work order by the Chairman DPDB/SDPDB. 6. Issue of Expenditure sanction by the Planning Department. 7. Verification of scheme for which completion has been reported to the Chairman, DPDB/SDPDB. 8. Issue of completion Certificate by verification committee. 9. Release of funds for completed schemes. 8. 4. Issue of Administrative Approval by the Planning Department. 5. Issue of work order by the Chairman DPDB/SDPDB. 6. Issue of Expenditure sanction by the Planning Department. 7. Verification of scheme for which completion has been reported to the Chairman, DPDB/SDPDB. 8. Issue of completion Certificate by verification committee. 9. Release of funds for completed schemes. 8. From a bare perusal of the above provisions, it is seen that both the DPDB/SDPDB shall be constituted with Ministers/MLA of the Districts and Head of the Department in the Districts and sub-divisions as members with Deputy Commissioner or Addl. Deputy Commissioner as Chairman as the case may be i.e. the Deputy Commissioner shall be the Chairman for DPDB and Additional Deputy Commissioner for SDPDB. The DPDB/SDPDB may have advisers and Govt. nominees appointed by the Govt. as and when necessary. Admittedly SPB, being the apex authority, shall be constituted with Chief-Minister as Chairman plus the Chief Secretary, the Development Commissioner and the selected cabinet Minister as members. Basically the schemes are to be submitted by the village Council/local bodies and members of DPDB/SDPDB. The detailed examination, discussion and finalisation of the scheme shall, thereafter, be done by DPDB/SDPDB. Then only the schemes on being approved by the DPDB/SDPDB, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for obtaining clearance of SPB. Administrative approval shall be issued thereafter by the Planning Department and finally work order shall be issued by the respective Chairman DPDB/SDPDB. As regards the role, functions and responsibilities of the Govt. nominees, it is provided in the Annexure-IH to the guidelines as follows: II role, Functions and Responsibility of Government Nominees" The main role, function and responsibility of the Government Nominee shall be to represent the Government in the DPDB/SDPDB to ensure that the schemes on the ground are properly implemented and funds are judiciously utilized. He shall also ensure that the interests of the underprivileged section are not neglected. He shall serve as the eyes and ears of the Government so that the LADP schemes are successfully implemented. 9. Therefore it is clear that the Govt. nominees has to see only the proper implementation of the Schemes and judicious utilization of the funds accorded for implementation of such schemes. He shall have to ensure that the interests of under-privileged section are well protected. In other words, he has a say in successful implementation of the scheme as under LPDP. 10. nominees has to see only the proper implementation of the Schemes and judicious utilization of the funds accorded for implementation of such schemes. He shall have to ensure that the interests of under-privileged section are well protected. In other words, he has a say in successful implementation of the scheme as under LPDP. 10. Emphasizing on the strict adherence to the guidelines including Calendar of Action from annual plan 2004-05, the Development Commissioner. Planning and Coordination Department (Planning Branch) Nagaland, Appellant No. 3 in W.A. No. 91/04, and 92/04 vide Circular dated 9.10.03, re-scheduled the time frame for the current year 2003-04 assigning the reason that due to circumstances beyond their control, it became impracticable to adhere to the calendar action during the current year 2003-04, as follows: Activities Dateline 1. Submission of approved schemes to the Planning Department by the DPDB/SDPDB. 25.10.03 2. Approval of State Planning Board 05.11.03 3. Issue of Administrative approval by Planning Department 10.11.03 4. Issue of work order by Chairman DPDB/SDPDB 15.11.03 5. Release of funds against the schemes completed and verify by the committee/committees onwards constituted for the purpose 20.12.03 6. Submission of detailed progress Report/completion/Utilization Reports to the Planning & Co-operation Department February - March, 2004 7. Evaluation of Schemes on a random sampling basis April-May 2004 11. The Appellant No. 3 vide notification dated 9.10.2003 i.e. on the same day by which the time frame for the implementation of the Scheme under LADP was rescheduled, appointed Sri Mezhulie Aangami (Pro-forma Respondent No. 2 in Writ Appeal No. 92/04) as Govt. Nominee for the District of Dimapur and Smti Chubalemla Ao and Shri Nukzenketba as Govt. nominees it the District of Mukokchung to DPDB for the year 2003-04 (Proforma Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in Writ Appeal No. 91/04). Again on 27.10.03 the Respondent No. 3 appointed one Nuklutoshi as Govt. nominee to DPDB, Mukokchung District for the year 2003-04. (reform Respondent No. 8 to W.A. No. 91/04) 12. For Mukokchung District, DPDB held its meeting on 13.10.03 and 20.10.03 and approve a consolidated scheme amounting to Rs. 498.50 lakhs and forwarded to the same SPD. In the meeting dated 20.10.03, held to finalise the scheme under LADP for the year 2003-04, two Govt. nominees appointed on 9.10.03 submitted an additional scheme amounting to Rs. For Mukokchung District, DPDB held its meeting on 13.10.03 and 20.10.03 and approve a consolidated scheme amounting to Rs. 498.50 lakhs and forwarded to the same SPD. In the meeting dated 20.10.03, held to finalise the scheme under LADP for the year 2003-04, two Govt. nominees appointed on 9.10.03 submitted an additional scheme amounting to Rs. 124.59 lakhs which DPDB could not approve but the D.C. being the Chairman of the DPDB, forwarded the same to the State Govt. Seeking additional fund. The said scheme approved by DPDB for Rs. 498.50 lakhs along with the scheme received from those two Govt. nominees for Rs. 124.59 lakhs as an additional scheme were placed before SPD for final approval. 13. Be it mentioned that the private Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 91/04 were recommended for allotment of different works in the respective constituencies under Mukokchang District amounting to an estimate cost of Rs. 7 lakhs. It is pertinent to mention that under LADP, as sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) are allocated to each constituency to be utilized in various development works as per the guiltiness. So far Ghaspani-II Assembly Constituency under Dimapur District is concerned, the DPDB held its meeting on 20.10.03 and approved a consolidated scheme and forwarded the same to SPD. In the said meeting, the Govt. Nominee also submitted schemes but DPDB without approving it forwarded the same to SPD along with the approved consolidated scheme. 14. The Govt. vide communication dated 10.11.03 written to the concerned D.C./Addl. D.C. i.e. the respective Chairman DPDB/SDPDB conveying the decision of the meeting of SPD held on 7.11.03 to the effect that the scheme submitted by DPDB for Rs. 498.50 lakhs with an additional scheme involving Rs. 124.59 lakhs for Mokokchung District could not be approved as there was no provision or additional allocation of find and thereby DPDB was requested to review and recast the scheme within the allocation of Rs. 498.50 lakh. The said communication also included the case of Ghaspani-II Assembly Constituency for Dimapur District. 15. On receipt of the communication dated 10.11.03, the DPDB Mukokchung held its meeting on 18.11.03 to discuss the role of Govt. nominee in terms of guidelines and decided that Govt. nominees are not entitled to any amount of money. However, all the members unanimously decided to contribute Rs. 15. On receipt of the communication dated 10.11.03, the DPDB Mukokchung held its meeting on 18.11.03 to discuss the role of Govt. nominee in terms of guidelines and decided that Govt. nominees are not entitled to any amount of money. However, all the members unanimously decided to contribute Rs. 1 lakhs from all 10 Assembly constituencies in addition to 5 lakhs towards common pool including the uncovered and neglected areas in the district of Mukokchung. Similarly the DPDB for Ghaspani-II Assembly constituency under Dimapur District convened meeting on 21.11.03 but without arriving at any concrete decision, again placed the scheme before SPD. Meanwhile another Govt. nominee appointed on 27.10.03 for Mokokchung District submitted a scheme directly to the Chairman SPD on 8.11.03. 16. The SPD in its meeting held on 24.11.03 examined both the cases of Mukokchung District as well as Ghaspani-II Assembly Constituency of Dimapur District and held that the scheme for those Constituencies could not be proved and such decision was conveyed to the D.C. Mukokchung and Dimapur vide communication dated 25.11.03 assigning the reasons for such rejection of the schemes. The communication dated 25.11.03, as referred to above, reads as under: Government of Nagaland Planning and coordination department (Planning Branch) No. PLAN/LADP/65/2003-04 Dated Kohima, the 25th Nov. 03 To, The Deputy Commissioner Mokokchung, Dimapur Sub: Review of Local Area Development Programme 2003-04 (LADP) Sir, I am directed to inform that the State Planning Board in its meeting held on 24th Nov. 2003 has examined the LADP schemes submitted by the various District Planning and Development Board (DPDB) and Sub-Divisional Planning & Development Boards and the schemes under the following Assembly Constituencies could not be approved due to the reasons indicated below. You are therefore, request to review the schemes and submit the recasted/review schemes to Planning department before 30.11.03 positively as State Planning Board will re-examine the same. SI. No. Name of District Reasons for Rejection 1. Assembly Constituency Mokokchung District A representation was received from one of the Government nominees of Mokokchung District schemes involving an amount of Rs. 70.31 lakhs. This is in addition to the allocation of LADP fund for Mokokchung District of Rs. 498.50 lakh. If the Govt. Nominees demand is considered the same will have to be accommodate within the allocation of Rs. 49.50 lakhs of Mokokchung District. 70.31 lakhs. This is in addition to the allocation of LADP fund for Mokokchung District of Rs. 498.50 lakh. If the Govt. Nominees demand is considered the same will have to be accommodate within the allocation of Rs. 49.50 lakhs of Mokokchung District. Hence, the entire proposal of the DPDB, Mokokchung is referred back to DPDB, Mokokchung for review and recast of schemes within the allocated amount of Rs. 499.50 lakhs. 2. Dimapur District DPDB, Dimapur has failed to resolve the dispute, regard to accommodation of schemes of Government Nominee but forwarded the demands to the State Planning Board. The schemes for Ghaspani AJC is referred back to DPDB, Dimapur for further review and recast of the Schemes within the allocation amount of Rs. 49.85 lakhs. Sd/II Illegible (C.N. Ovung) Joint Development Commissioner 17. It is seen from the above communication that the entire proposal of DPDB Mokokchung and Dimapur District had again been referred back to the respective DPDB to review and recast the scheme with the allocated amount mentioned therein taking into view that if Govt. nominees schemes are to be considered, the same should be to be accommodated with allocated approved amount 18. On 26.11.03 the Chairman DPDB Mokokchung issued a Circular informing that the DPDB which was scheduled to be held on 27.11.03 had again been deferred to 4.12.03. The private Respondents in W.A. No. 91/94 who were recommended for allotment of different work under the Scheme, being aggrieved by such action of rejection by SPD of the scheme so approved by the DPDB, moved this Court through W.P.(C) No. 209 (K)/03 for quashment of communication dated 25.11.03 as well as Circular dated 26.11.03 with a prayer to direct the State/Respondents to approve LADP scheme relating to Mokokchung District in terms of the minutes of the DPDB meeting held on 18.11.03. Similarly the private Respondent in W.A. No. 92/94 moved the W.P (C) No. 215(K)/03 for quahsment of communication dated 25.11.03 relating to Ghaspani-II Assembly Constituency of Dimapur District. 19. In the backdrop of such fact situation noted above, the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the materials available on record, by the impugned order held that the Govt. 19. In the backdrop of such fact situation noted above, the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the materials available on record, by the impugned order held that the Govt. nominee in terms of the guideline was not authorized to submit any scheme to DPDB/SDPDB or SPD directly observing that if any interest of under-privileged section was required to be looked into and considered by DPDB/SDPDB, the Govt. nominee had the power to bring the same to the notice of PDB/SDPDB to ensure that their interest was well protected and accordingly both the communications dated 25.11.03 as well as circular dated 26.11.03 were quashed and set aside. 20. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Advocate General appearing for the State Appellants has vehemently argued that the Govt. nominee has a definite role to play in the DPDB constituted in terms of the guiltiness. Such Govt. nominee has been appointed with a purpose to serve as eyes and ears of the Govt. So that the schemes under LADP are successfully implemented. The Govt. nominee has been entrusted with the duty to ensure that interest of under-privileged sections are not neglected. That apart, once he is appointed as Govt. nominee to DPDB, he becomes a member at par with other members of the DPDB and enjoys the same powers and privilege as a member in DPDB. Hence, he has absolute power and responsibility for preparing and submitting his own scheme to the DPDB/SDPDB, if he feels that same would benefit the under-privileged sections. Referring to Clause-I of Sequence of Procedure, he has emphatically contended that being a member of DPDB, the Govt. nominee, when permitted to participate in identification, selection and submission of schemes with technical estimate to DPDB/SDPDB, he can also exercise all power of submission of scheme to the DPDB/SDPDB. Referring to Calendar of Action for implementation of the scheme under LADP, the learned Advocate General has submitted that submission of scheme beyond time limit prescribed in the Notification dated 9.10.03 will not invalidate a scheme submitted by the Govt. nominee. Mr. Referring to Calendar of Action for implementation of the scheme under LADP, the learned Advocate General has submitted that submission of scheme beyond time limit prescribed in the Notification dated 9.10.03 will not invalidate a scheme submitted by the Govt. nominee. Mr. Dutta has also submitted that private Respondents, being the beneficiaries of the scheme under which they have been allotted certain works to be performed in the respective Constituencies, have no locus standi to file a writ petition and as such these both the writ petitions filed by the private Respondents are not at all maintainable. 21. Mr. H. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the govt. nominees/Appellants in W.A. of 93/04 and 94/04 has forcefully argued that the question whether the Govt. nominee has the power to submit scheme either to the DPDB/SDPDB or SPD directly, can be well answered by simply going through the Notification dated 9.10.03 rescheduling the time frame prescribing the Calendar of Action for implementation of the scheme under LADP vis-a-vis Notification dated 9.10.03 by which the Govt. nominees have been appointed. According to him, immediately after rescheduling the time period for submission and approval of the scheme, on the same date the Govt. nominees have been appointed, meaning thereby the Govt. nominees have been appointed not only to participate in a deliberation as regards selection and submission of schemes submitted by village council local bodies and/or other members of DPDB/SDPDB as envisaged in the guideline, but they also have a responsibility to submit appropriate scheme as and when necessary and more particularly when the interests of under privileged classes of the respective Constituencies/areas are affected. That being so, according to him, learned Single Judge has taken an erroneous view that Govt. nominee has no role to play pertaining to submission of any scheme. 22. Supporting the impugned judgment and order, Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Private Respondents, has, by advancing his extensive submissions, argued that the entire action of appointment of, Govt. Nominees by the State Respondents lacks bonafide and transparency inasmuch as all the Govt. nominees are admittedly defeated candidates in last General assembly Election and as such the appointment of those Govt. nominees itself is motivated, illegal and without any authority. Reacting to such submission, Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate General, relying on paragraph-17 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the Govt. nominees are admittedly defeated candidates in last General assembly Election and as such the appointment of those Govt. nominees itself is motivated, illegal and without any authority. Reacting to such submission, Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate General, relying on paragraph-17 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the Govt. against the W.P.(C) No. 209(K)/03, has submitted that there was no criteria or qualification laid down in the guidelines for appointment of Govt. nominee and hence it is the prerogative of the Govt. to; appoint govt. nominee irrespective of whether the nominees belongs to a particular political party or defeated candidates. 23. Mr. Mishra's submission is that nowhere in the guidelines, it is provided that govt. Nominee can submit a scheme. The Structure regarding constitution of DPDB/SDPDB which has already been referred to clearly indicates that Govt. may appoint advisors and govt. Nominees as deemed necessary from time to time the DPDB/SDPDB. The role to be payed by the Govt. nominee has also been specifically mentioned in Annexure-III to the guidelines wherein it is categorically stipulated that the Govt. nominee shall only represent the govt. so that schemes are properly implemented and fund allocated for such purpose are judiciously utilized and he has a particular role to ensure that the interest of under - privileged are not neglected. In view of the same, accordingly the learned Sr. Counsel, it is manifestly clear that it is upto the govt. to appoint govt. nominee, only as and when necessary and after such appointment as Govt. nominee no specific power for presenting scheme to DPDB/SDPDB has been entrusted to him. 24. Rejecting the plea of non maintainability of the writ petitions preferred by the private Respondents on account of lack of their locus standi to initiate a writ proceeding as advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Mishra has submitted that out of the Scheme approved by the DPDB to Mokokchung and Dimapur District, the private Respondents have been awarded various contracts work in the respective constituencies and since the entire project has been stalled by Notification dated 25.11.03 by the govt. and the DPDB has not been held within the scheduled date, the Private Respondents having interest in the implementation of the programme within scheduled time, have right to agitate the same before the writ Court. 25. Coming to the merit of the case. Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. and the DPDB has not been held within the scheduled date, the Private Respondents having interest in the implementation of the programme within scheduled time, have right to agitate the same before the writ Court. 25. Coming to the merit of the case. Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel with reference to Mokochung District, has submitted that immediately after the appointment of the Govt. nominee vide Notification dated 9.10.03, the DPDB Mokokchung held it meeting on 13.10.03 and in the said meeting both the Govt. nominees remained absent and the schemes for six constituencies of Mokokchung District had been selected and approved by the DPDB and sent for clearance of SPD. On 20.10.03 when DPDB Mokokchung held its meeting both the Govt. nominees were present and in their presence Schemes for 3 other Constituencies had also been finalized and approved by DPDB and sent for clearance of SPB. In the said meeting a thorough discussion was held on the schemes submitted by the two Govt. nominees even though they were not elected members and accordingly the DPDB decided to forward the schemes received from the Govt. nominee to SPB. In the meantime on 20.7.03 the Respondent No. 8 in W.A. No. 91/03 was appointed as 3rd nominee to DPDB Mokokchung and on 8.11.03 the said nominee directly sent a scheme to the Chairman SPD bypassing DPDB/SDPDB with a request to disburse Rs. 10 lakhs to NPF and Rs. 10 lakhs to BJP each so as to implement the common minimum programme. But in the meeting of DPDB held on 18.11.03 to review and re-cast the scheme within the allocation of Rs. 498.50 lakhs in 10 constituencies as desired by SPD in its meeting held on 7.1.03 which was communicated vide communication dated 10.11.03, these three Govt. nominees in Mokokchung District were present an in their presence the members categorically stated that Govt. nominees were not entitled to any find for preparing and supporting scheme. In the said meeting it was resolved that after long deliberation good sense prevailed and Hon'ble members agreed to contribute Rs. 1 lakhs each in addition to Rs. 5 lakhs each already contributed towards common pool to cover some of the uncovered and neglected areas in the District and accordingly the approved list of reviewed scheme amounting to Rs. 498.50 lakhs were sent for clearance to SPD. In view of the same, Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. 1 lakhs each in addition to Rs. 5 lakhs each already contributed towards common pool to cover some of the uncovered and neglected areas in the District and accordingly the approved list of reviewed scheme amounting to Rs. 498.50 lakhs were sent for clearance to SPD. In view of the same, Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the Govt. nominee cannot make any grievance as regards submission and approval of separate scheme submitted by them which would manifestly attract additional amount. Arguing his last point, Mr. Mishra has urged that since the guidelines provides for submission of any scheme within the time limit as per calendar of action and the appointment of Govt. nominees being made on latter stage, such action itself goes to show that Govt. Nominee is not required to submit any scheme. Moreso, the Govt. nominees have submitted their schemes at a belated stage and that too beyond the stipulated period for which the same cannot be accepted. 26. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the extensive submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned Counsel representing the rival parties. We have also gone through the relevant materials available on record including the pleadings of the parties as well as the guidelines framed for the purpose of implementation of the scheme under LADR Admittedly the private Respondents are the beneficiaries of the schemes which were duly approved by the DPDB and works have also been allowed to them pursuant to such approved schemes within the allocated amount to the exclusion of the scheme submitted by the Govt. nominees. In our humble opinion, the private Respondents have the interest in the project and as such they have the locus standi to file connected writ petitions. 27. From a bare perusal of the guidelines it appears to us that there is no provision in the said guidelines providing that the Govt. nominee can submit any scheme either to the DPDB/SDPDB or SPD directly The Govt. nominee is appointed by the Government. His appointment maybe said to be optional as Govt. may appoint a Govt. nominee, if and when necessary. Therefore it is not incumbent on the part of the Govt. to appoint a Govt. nominee in the constitution of DPDB/SDPDB. The role and function of the Govt. nominee as prescribed under the guidelines appears to be limited. His appointment maybe said to be optional as Govt. may appoint a Govt. nominee, if and when necessary. Therefore it is not incumbent on the part of the Govt. to appoint a Govt. nominee in the constitution of DPDB/SDPDB. The role and function of the Govt. nominee as prescribed under the guidelines appears to be limited. His participation is precisely supervisory in nature because he is required only to ensure that scheme coming up for discussion and approval are properly implemented and funds get its proper utilization. He shall have to serve as eyes and ears of Govt. so that the scheme are successfully implemented without prejudicing the interest of under privileged sections. If this is the role and function to be played by the Govt. nominees, then where is the scope of the Govt. nominee to submit a separate and independent scheme. He, not being an elected member of DPDB/SDPDB, cannot claim the same right like of the other members included in the constitution of DPDB. 28. In the premises aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Govt. nominees has no role to play in submission of any scheme separately and independently in terms of the guidelines. In other words, the Govt. nominee has no power to submit any scheme save and except the function and responsibility to be carried out by him in the specific terms of the guidelines. 29. In view of what has been stated, discussed and observed above, we do not find any cogent or valid ground to upset the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 30. In the result all these. Writ appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed