NAITIK PARTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chandra Bhushan Pandey along with Ms. Tripti Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India and Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) This is a Public Interest Litigation which was filed way-back in 2014 seeking following reliefs:

(3.) The contention of Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in nutshell, was that the Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojna of the Central Government is an encroachment on the powers of the State Government and the Village Panchayat. He invited our attention to Part IX of the Constitution of India dealing specifically with - "The Panchayat". He specifically invited our attention to Article 243G of the Constitution of India to submit that by the said provision power had been given to the State Government and the State Legislature in respect of Panchayats and this power and jurisdiction is exclusive, therefore, formulation of a scheme by the Central Government in respect of a matter which is exclusively within the domain of the State Government and the Village Panchayat is in direct conflict with the provisions of the Constitution and the powers and jurisdiction of the State Government and the Village Panchayat. He also invited our attention to Schedule 11 of the Constitution of India which is referable to Part IX to drive home the point that the 11th Schedule contains the subjects on which exclusive jurisdiction has been vested upon the State Government and the Village Panchayat which is being encroached by the scheme in question framed by the Central Government. He invited our attention to various paragraphs in the writ petition and the grounds taken therein in support thereof.