9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own as Mewat Regional Development Programme as far back as 1987-1988. With the approval of the Governor of the State, a Mewat Regional Development Board was also constituted. In order to give impetus to the development of the said region, in 2013-14 the budget was increased from ₹ 25 Crores to ₹ 60 Crores. The government invited proposals from various Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads with regard to implementation of the development programmes. Consequently, the petitioner had sent a proposal for the Panchayat Samiti, Nagar and the Panchayat Samiti, Deeg. It is the petitioner's case that although according to the letter dated 9.5.2013 the meeting of the Board was scheduled to be held on 5.6.2013, but by order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013, it has been alloted a budget of ₹ 1309.70 Lacs. Thus, the Panchayat Samiti , Kaman has been allotted more budget than it actually could have been given by the Government. This clearly shows that the Panchayat Samiti, Kaman has been favoured over and above the other Panchayat Samities . Fifthly, allotment of budget has to be done fairly, reasonably and proportionately as development of the entire region is in question. Therefore, the respondents could not adopt a policy of pick and choose. Hence, sudden allotment of budget, by order dated 4.6.2013, suffers from hostile discrimination: it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, this court cannot sit as an appellate court. This court is not concerned with the legality or illegality of the decision per se. This court can only examine if the procedure adopted for reaching the decision is legal or not? Therefore, this court would not be justified in substituting its decision for the decision of the government. After all, the courts are not equipped and do not have sufficient information and knowledge to decide on issues or policies. Hence, it is a settled position of law that in the garb of exercise of judicial review the courts should be weary of interfering with the policy decision of the government. The courts are permitted to interfere only if it is clearly made out that the decision is an unfair, unjust, unrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of ₹ 561.2 Lacs were allotted to Panchayat Samiti, Nagar. Thus, the petitioner cannot argue that her proposals were either ignored or overlooked. Hence, even if the budget were allotted prior to the meeting of the Board, the allocation of budget could not be illegal. The learned counsel has also contended that while distributing the funds, a proportionality has to be kept in mind by the respondents. According to him, budget should be allocated on the ground of backwardness of an area . According to him, the backwardness of Nagar has been ignored by the respondents. However, the word backwardness is a relative term. There is no evidence on record to show that the Panchayat Samiti, Nagar happens to be the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said that the respondents have granted more budget to Panchayat Samiti, Kaman than it actually deserved. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that Kaman has been favoured due to the interference of respondents No.4 and 5 is unacceptable. Further, respondent No.4 happens to be the Member of Parliament from Bharatpur. Thus, obviously he represents the interest of the entire district. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that he has interfered in order to favour one particular Panchayat Samiti over another. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. ( VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)VJ. (R.S. CHAUHAN)J. GS All corrections made in the judgment/orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
