BIHAR RAJYA PANCHAYAT PARISHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no denial, and this is a matter on record, that but for orders of the High Court, Bihar would not have had elections in institutions of self- Government identified in the Constitution of India under Chapters IX and IXA as the Panchayats and Municipalities. But, notwithstanding the aspect that elections have been held to the Panchayats in 2001 and the Municipalities during summer of this year, the entire geometry of the administration of the Panchayats and Municipalities is not in place.

(2.) Many aspects are still missing. For the last two years when this Court has been engaged with these matters with efforts to restore self Government to constitutionally identified institutions there seems to be a misunderstanding that City Corporations, Municipalities, Zila Parishads, Nagar Panchayats and Panchayats, are still fiefs of the bureaucracy in administration. This is not so.

(3.) When the Constitution of India was amended by the 73rd and 74th amendments by insertion of Chapters on PANCHAYATS and MUNICIPALITIES a new concept of national planning was being spelt out. This is something which had not been seen before as most municipal enactments are provincial and of pre independence era. The basic feature of planning at all levels, village to cities, is now so intended that there has to be an integrated infrastructure for development in all spheres of planning. The Constitution of India now puts an obligation on the State that it will co-ordinate planning in reference to items mentioned in the Eleventh and the Twelfth Schedules. Institution of self Government, thus, are to join together as a grid to carry out planning on the items which are mentioned in these Schedules. In the Eleventh Schedule, in the context of Panchayats, there are 29 items. In Twelfth Schedule, in context of municipalities, there are 18 items. The Court is not repeating the items which are mentioned in the two Schedules.