Infrastructural facilities under the Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (AGAMT), a flagship scheme of the State government, could not be provided on the basis of number of ward members representing each village falling under a panchayat, the Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled.
Justices Chitra Venkataraman and M. Duraiswamy made the observation while dismissing a public interest litigation petition which claimed that a majority of works under the AGAMT scheme for Mahendravadi Panchayat in Tirunelveli district had been allotted to a village with less number of ward members.
"The fact that the petitioner village has more number of ward members and the other village (where maximum number of works was to be carried out) has less number is of little significance in the matter of consideration of providing basic infrastructure to the villages under a very laudable scheme," the judges said.
K. Palanichamy, an elected member from Ward No.4 of Rengasamudram, had filed the PIL petition claiming himself to be a social worker. According to him, his village and four others — Venkatachalapuram, Royappapuram, Mahendravadi and Pudhukulam — came under Mehendravadi panchayat.
The government allotted Rs.17.3 lakh for carrying out infrastructure works in the panchayat under the AGAMT for 2009-10. Of the 13 works identified to be taken up under the scheme, six works costing around Rs.11.3 lakh were proposed to be carried out in Venkatachalapuram alone.
Allegation
Alleging that Venkatachalapuram got the lion’s share just because both the president and vice-president of the panchayat had been elected from that place, the petitioner said that his village with much higher population represented by a majority of three ward members was left behind in the development process.
The judges rejected the petitioner’s contention and pointed out that a nine-member selection committee comprising of the Block Development Officer and Assistant Engineer of Kuruvikulam panchayat union had allotted the works under the scheme after inspecting the villages and analysing their requirements.
Writing the judgment, Ms. Justice Venkataraman said: "The conscious decision taken by the committee has to be respected in [the] right spirit?Further, in such matters, the jurisdiction of this court is very limited and it is always left to the better wisdom of the committee which has an in-depth knowledge on requirements of the villages."
