JITENDRA MEHTA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner before this Court is an elected member of District Planning Committee, Bageshwar. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of

the meeting of District Planning Committee, Bageshwar held on 21.08.2017 on ground that the said meeting was convened in contravention of the

Rules and the quorum was not complete.Â

“District Planning Committee†has been defined under Article 243-ZD of the Constitution of India. Under Article 243-ZD of the Constitution of

India, in every State there has to be a district level committee known as “District Planning Committeeâ€, which shall consolidate the plans prepared

by the “Panchayatsâ€​ and the Municipalities in the district and shall prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole. Section 243-ZD of

the Constitution of India reads as under:

“243-ZD. Committee for district planning. (1) There shall be constituted in every State at the district level a District Planning Committee to

consolidate the plans prepared by the Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as a

whole.

(2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to-

(a) the composition of the District Planning Committees:

(b) the manner in which the seats in such Committees shall be filled:

Provided that not less than four-fifths of the total number of members of such Committee shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected members

of the Panchayat at the district level and of the Municipalities in the district in proportion to the ratio between the population of the rural areas and of

the urban areas in the district:

(c) the functions relating to district planning which may be assigned to such Committees:

(d) the manner in which the Chairpersons of such Committees shall be chosen.

(3) Every District Planning Committee shall, in preparing the draft development plan, -

(a) have regard to- (i) matters of common interest between the Panchayats and the Municipalities including spatial planning, sharing of water and

other physical and natural resources, the integrated development of infrastructure and environmental conservation: (ii) the extent and type of available

resources whether financial or otherwise;

(b) consult such institutions and organizations as the Governor may, by order, specify.

(4) The Chairperson of every District Planning Committee shall forward the development plan, as recommended by such Committee, to the

Government of the State.â€​

In pursuance of the above, the State of Uttarakhand framed an Act known as the Uttarakhand District Planning Committee Act. As per the Act,

the minimum number of members in a District Planning Committee has to be 15 and the maximum number of members has to be 40. Now as per the

Amendment in 2016, this Court has been informed by the learned Deputy

Advocate General for the State, that the minimum number of the members has been now increased to 20.Â

Presently, we are concerned with the District Planning Committee, Bageshwar. According to the petitioner the number of members in the District

Planning Committee, Bageshwar is 15, but according to the learned State Counsel, it is 20.

The concern raised by the petitioner is that as per Section 4 of the Act, the District Planning Committee could not have passed the plan unless the

quorum is complete. The case of the petitioner is that the quorum in the meeting held on 21.08.2017 was not complete.Â

However, this matter cannot be examined as of now, as this Court has been informed that the plan which has been passed by the District Planning

Committee in its meeting dated 21.08.2017 has already been implemented and, therefore, writ petition itself has been rendered infructuous. Though

this fact is admitted by the petitioner that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous, but he prays that this Court may give a finding that the

meeting held on 21.08.2017 was in contravention of the Rules.

This Court is not inclined to interfere into this aspect considering that writ petition has become infructuous. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed

as having been rendered infructuous.