Rameshwar Singh Malik J.— CM. No. 7806 of 2013 1. Applicant seeks permission of the Court to place on record reply by way of counter Affidavit of Manmohan Singh, Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Construction Division, Batala, on behalf of respondent No. 5. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Reply is permitted to be placed on record. C.M. stands disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 3188 of 2013 2. The only short but important question of law that falls for consideration of this Court, in this batch of nine writ petitions, is whether the amount released under the Members of Parliament Civil Writ Petition No. 3788 of 2013 & connected cases Local Area Development Scheme (for short "MPLAD" Scheme), is necessarily, to be utilized only through the Gram Panchayats and no other agency. 3. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 3788 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Kahnuwan, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), 3992 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Bhurian Sainian, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), 3993 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Jalalpur, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), 3994 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Bhucch, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), 4245 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Ladhupur, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), 5517 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Bhaini Paswal, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), 5548 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Sohal, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), 6206 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat village Pandori, Maiya Singh, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others) and 6227 of 2013 (Paramjit Kaur, Sarpanch, Village Salahpur, Block Kahnuwan v. The State of Punjab and Others), all these nine writ petitions are being decided vide this common order. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No. 3 788 of 2013 (Gram Panchayat Village Kahnuwan v. State of Punjab and Others). 4. The facts, which are hardly in dispute, are that after having due deliberations on the issue, Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India announced the MPLAD Scheme in the Parliament on 23.12.1993. 4. The facts, which are hardly in dispute, are that after having due deliberations on the issue, Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India announced the MPLAD Scheme in the Parliament on 23.12.1993. Initially, the Scheme was under the control of Ministry of Rural Development and the first guidelines were issued in February, 1994, covering the concept of implementation and monitoring of the scheme. Thereafter, MPLAD Scheme was transferred to Ministry of Statistics and Progamme Implementation in the month of October, 1994. Later on, the guidelines were revised in the month of December 1994, February 1997, September 1999, April 2002, November 2005 and finally in August, 2012. It is pertinent to note here that present comprehensive revision of guidelines is based on the practical experiences gained over a period of 18 years. These guidelines have been revised after considering the suggestions made by the various stakeholders including Members of Parliament, both the candidates of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development Consultancy Services (NABCONS) and Controller and Auditor General of India, in their respective reports. 5. In the present case, the, Deputy Economic Statistical Advisor, District Gurdaspur-respondent No. 3, issued the sanction order granting approval for an amount of Rs. 60 Lacs, in favour of Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD (B&R) Gurdaspur at Batala, District Gur-daspur respondent No. 5, for different six villages/areas, as per the list attached with An-nexure P-1. Under the MPLAD Scheme during the year 2012-2013, the amount of Rs. 6 lacs was also released, for construction of boundary wall and shed in Shamshan. Ghat (Cremation Ground) of Lubana Baradari, on Chak Sarif Road in village Kahnuwan. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat, vide its application dated 23.01.2013 (Annexure P-2), approached respondent No.3 for releasing the above said amount of ? 6 lacs in favour of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, in place of respondent No. 5, so as to enable the petitioner-Gram Panchayat to spend this amount. When the respondent- authorities were not acceding to the request of the petitioner and respondent No.5 was proceeding further to utilize the above said amount in question, petitioner-Gram Panchayat has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the sanction order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.3. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought, directing the respondents to hand over the amount of Rs. 6 lacs to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, authorizing it for utilization thereof. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 6. Notice of motion was issued on 20.02.2013 by passing the following order : "Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 15833 of 2011 (Gram Panchayat Village Mann v. State of Punjab and others), to contend, inter alia, that the amount of grant can be used only by the Gram Panchayat and not by respondent No.5. Notice of motion for 29.04.2013. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Suresh Singla, Additional A. G, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply four sets of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the State, during the course of day. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to serve respondent No.4, by way of dasti process. Permitted to do so. Learned counsel for the State seeks time to get instructions and also file the reply, if any. In the meantime, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to release the amount of grant which conies to the share of the petitioner, only in favour of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat and not in favour of respondent No. 5." 7. In compliance of the above said orders, respondent No. 4 filed his reply on 29.04.2013, but on the request having been made on behalf of respondent-State, another opportunity was granted to it for filing its reply. 8. Learned counsel for the State has filed reply in the Court, today, by way of counter affidavit dated 14.05.2013 of Shri Ashok Kumar, Research Officer, Deputy Economic and Statistical Advisor, Gurdaspur, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, which is taken on record and copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. With the consent of the parties, the cases were taken up for final disposal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 has acted in arbitrary manner while passing the impugned sanction order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-l), releasing the amount in question in favour of respondent No. 5, thereby ignoring the petitioner Gram Panchayat. 9. With the consent of the parties, the cases were taken up for final disposal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 has acted in arbitrary manner while passing the impugned sanction order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-l), releasing the amount in question in favour of respondent No. 5, thereby ignoring the petitioner Gram Panchayat. The impugned order was contrary to the judgment dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in CWP No. 15833 of 2011 (Gram Panchayat Village Mann v. State of Punjab and others). He further submits that preference ought to have been given to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat instead of respondent No.5. He concluded by submitting that the amount in question given under the MPLAD Scheme, could have been spent only through the petitioner-Gram Panchayat and not through respondent No. 5. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned sanction order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) by allowing the present writ petition. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B him Singh v. Union of India 2010(5) SCC 538 . 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 vehemently contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, because some material information has been intentionally withheld from the notice of this Court. The amount covered under the impugned sanction order was governed not by the provisions of Section 86 and 89 of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "Act of 1994") but it was covered under the latest Guidelines of August, 2012 on MPLAD Scheme, funded by the Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. He next contended that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not applicable in the present case. As per the object of MPLAD Scheme, the impugned sanction order was rightly passed by the competent authority and present writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 12. Further, supporting the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.4, learned counsel for the State also submits that the impugned sanction order was passed strictly in accordance with the aims and objects of the MPLAD Scheme. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner were distinguishable on facts. 12. Further, supporting the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.4, learned counsel for the State also submits that the impugned sanction order was passed strictly in accordance with the aims and objects of the MPLAD Scheme. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner were distinguishable on facts. He further submits that the impugned sanction order deserves to be upheld, as the same was being sought to be utilized through a Government Agency, thus, in a transparent manner and also in order to achieve the target under the MPLAD Scheme. He finally prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case warranting interference at the hands of the Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 14. A combined reading of the provisions of Sections 86 and 89 of the Act of 1994 and the guidelines of August, 2012 of MPLAD Scheme, available on the record of this case, leaves no room for doubt that funds released under MPLAD Scheme are not the ram Panchayat funds under the 1994 Act, as sought to be projected by the petitioner. As per the stand taken by the respondent-State in its written statement, the District Authority cannot release the funds suo motu to anybody, until and unless the recommendations are made by the concerned Member of Parliament and are sent to the District Authority on his letter head, duly signed by him as per para 3.1 of the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme. Since the Gram Panchayat funds under Section 86, financial assistance to the Gram Panchayats under Section 89 of the 1994 Act and the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme are distinctly independent being separate from each other, there is no scope of confusing these two funds with each other nor there is a scope of any ambiguity in this regard, as has been sought to be created by the petitioner. 15. 15. The objective of the MPLAD Scheme is to enable the MP's to recommend works of developmental nature, with emphasis on the creation of durable community assets, based on the locally felt needs to be taken up in their constituencies. Right from inception of the Scheme, durable assets of national priorities viz. drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation and roads etc. are being created. Further, based on the practical experiences gained over the number of years after introducing the MPLAD Scheme, Government of India thought it appropriate to increase the amount which was initially Rs. five lacs per Member of Parliament in the year 1993. This amount came to be revised to Rs. one crore per annum per MP constituency from 1994-95, which was further increased to two crores from 1998-99. This amount has been further increased to Rs. five crores from the financial year 2011-12. The responsibility for policy formulation, release of funds and prescribing monitoring mechanism for implementation of the Scheme, would be of Ministry of Statistics and Programme implementation. The department in each State ‘AJT's have been designated with the overall responsibility of supervision, monitoring and coordination of the MPLAD Scheme implementation, through the District Authorities. 16. With a view to achieve the above said objective, a complete mechanism has been put in place under the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme. Para 2.6 of the guidelines deals with recommendation/sanction of the works and the same reads as : "Each MP will recommend works up to the annual entitlement during the financial year in the format at Annex-III to the concerned District Authority. The District Authority will get the eligible sanctioned works executed as per the established procedure of the State Government", (in the matter of technical, sanction, tender/non-tender, schedule of rates, etc. However, powers to grant administrative sanction/approval will continue to remain with District Authority." 17. Para Nos.2.10 and 2.11 which deal with District Authority and implementing agency, providing a very wide scope in this regard, read as under: "District Collector/District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner will generally be the District Authority to implement MPLADS in the district. If the District Planning Committee is empowered by the State Government, the Chief Executive Officer of the District Planning Committee can function as the District Authority. If the District Planning Committee is empowered by the State Government, the Chief Executive Officer of the District Planning Committee can function as the District Authority. In case of Municipal Corporations, the Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer may function as the District Authority. In this regard, if there is any doubt, Government of India in consultation with the State/UT Government, will decide the District Authority for the purpose of MPLADS implementation." The District Authority shall identify the agency through which a particular work recommended by the MP should be executed. The executing agency so identified by the District Authority is the implementing agency. The Panchayati Raj Institution (PRIs) will preferably be the Implementing Agency in the rural areas and works implementation will be done through Chief Executive of the respective PRI. The Implementing Agencies in the urban areas should preferably be urban local bodies and works implementation will be done through Commissioner/Chief Executive Officers of Municipal Corporations, Municipalities. Further, the District Authority may choose either Government Department unit or Government agency or reputed Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) as capable of implementing the works satisfactorily as Implementing Agencies. For purpose of execution of works through Government Departments, District Authority can engage agencies such as, Public Health Engineering, Rural Housing, Housing Boards, Electricity Boards, and Urban Development Authorities etc, as Implementing Agencies. However, whenever an NGO is selected as implementing agency, it should have the requisite expertise in the chosen field of execution. The NGO should preferably be of National repute and should be selected by a Committee under District Authority. The implementation through NGO thereafter can follow State procedures. A bare reading of the above said relevant provisions of the guidelines, leaves no manner of doubt that a very wide scope has been provided leaving it to the discretion of the concerned member of parliament, to recommend the eligible work on his letter head duly signed by him. Recommendation of any third party or representatives of MP's are not admissible and cannot be acted upon. So far as the job to identify the Implementing Agency by the District Authority is concerned, again there is a very wide scope in this regard, contained in para Nos. 2.10 & 2.11 read with para No. 3.3 of the guidelines. So far as the job to identify the Implementing Agency by the District Authority is concerned, again there is a very wide scope in this regard, contained in para Nos. 2.10 & 2.11 read with para No. 3.3 of the guidelines. Different relevant factors for consideration are there for the District Authority for identifying the Implementing Agency. 18. In the present case, it is not even the pleaded case of the petitioner Gram-Panchayat, that it was capable of getting the work in question executed, within the period stipulated under the impugned sanction order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-1). Further, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is, as a matter of fact, not claiming itself as an Implementing Agency. As per the nature of the job and given time schedule, it is for the District Authority to identify the Executing Agency. Respondent No.3 has identified respondent No.5, as an Executing Agency. Admittedly, the Executing Agency is of the Government Department. 19. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any arbitrariness in the decision making process, at the hands of respondent No.3, while identifying respondent No. 5, as the Executing Agency under the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, there is no doubt about the law laid down therein, however, both the judgments are of no help to the petitioner, being clearly distinguishable on facts. In the judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Village Mann's case(supra), there was not even a passing reference of MPLAD, thus, the judgment is not applicable in the present case. Similarly, in the case of Bhim Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the constitutional validity of MPLAD Scheme. 20. Further, the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme which were under consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at that time, were the guidelines of November, 2005, which have been further revised vide guidelines of August 2012. Similarly, in the case of Bhim Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the constitutional validity of MPLAD Scheme. 20. Further, the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme which were under consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at that time, were the guidelines of November, 2005, which have been further revised vide guidelines of August 2012. It is pertinent to note here that on the basis of the provisions contained in para 2.11 of the guidelines regarding Implementing Agency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the relevant observations in para No. 72 of the judgment in Bhim Singh's case (supra), only to the effect that Panchayati Raj Institutions will be preferred as Implementing Agency. However, neither it is the object of the MPLAD Scheme nor any provisions are contained in the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme, to the effect that the Panchayati Raj Institutions will be the only Implementing Agency. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 72 of the judgment in Bhim Singh's case (supra) are also only to the effect that the Panchayati Raj Institutions will be the preferred as Implementing Agency. However, it is not the ratio dicendi in Bhim Singh's case (supra) that it will be only the Panchayati Raj Institutions and no other agency including the Government Agency, which would the Executing/Implementing Agency. 21. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that although the Panchayati Raj Institutions have not been excluded from the zone of consideration, while identifying as Implementing Agency, at the hands of the District Authority, yet the Panchayati Raj Institutions cannot claim their exclusive domain to the effect that it would be only the Panchayati Raj Institutions and no other department including Government Department, who could be the Implementing Agency. 22. Further, it is settled proposition of law that peculiar facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes one additional fact or circumstance can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pad-mausundra Rao and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002(2) R.C.R.(CMl) 373 : 2002(3) SCC 533 . 23. Sometimes one additional fact or circumstance can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pad-mausundra Rao and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002(2) R.C.R.(CMl) 373 : 2002(3) SCC 533 . 23. After a close scrutiny of the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme, this Court is satisfied that the adequate mechanism of cheques and balances have been provided under the guidelines. The eligible work recommended by the member of parliament, being a project to be completed in a time bound manner, the District Authority i.e. respondent No.3 in the present case, did not act arbitrarily while identifying respondent No. 5, a Government Department, as the Implementing Agency, capable of executing the eligible work qualitatively, timely and satisfactorily. 24. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the action of respondent No.3, while issuing the impugned sanction order was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Thus, the sanction order dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be upheld. 25. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, answer to the question posed at the outset, is and has to be in the negative. It is held that on receipt of the recommendation qua any eligible work from the concerned member of parliament, the District Authority is competent and empowered to identify any Implementing Agency including Panchayati Raj Institutions, Government Department or Government Agency or a reputed Non Government Organization (NGO), being capable of implementing the works satisfactorily. In the present case, District Authority has identified respondent No.5, as the Implementing Agency, strictly in accordance with the scope and spirit of the relevant provisions of the guidelines on MPLAD Scheme and particularly provided under para 2.11, reproduced above. Further, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned action taken by the respondent- authorities. 26. No other argument was raised. 27. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petitions axe Civil Writ Petition No. 3788 of 2013 & connected cases 18 misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, this batch of writ petitions must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Thus, this batch of writ petitions must fail. No case for interference has been made out. 28. Resultantly, this batch of nine writ petitions, particulars whereof have been given here-inabove, stand dismissed. Petition dismissed. Law Finder Doc Id/467W8