Shri Shivaji Education Society and Others vs Union of India and Others

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J—In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner No. 1 Society and No. 2 - its college challenge grant of KVK Center to respondent Nos. 5 and 6A by respondent No. 2 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We have heard Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Shri Rohit Deo, learned ASGI for Union of India and ICAR, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned AGP for Respondent No. 3 - State of Maharashtra, Shri A.R. Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No. - 4 PKV, Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5, and Shri C.V. Kale, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6A. Nobody has appeared for respondent No. 7, though served.

The effort of learned counsel for the petitioners is to demonstrate that KVK has been allotted without following any open transparent or competitive process and privately to respondent Nos. 5 and 6A. He points out that petitioners have applied for that Center much prior to applications submitted by other respondents and their application was pending and never rejected. Bulletin issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is relied upon to show that KVK can be implemented by registered reputed non-government organizations or selected ICAR institutes or selected well-established colleges. Hence it was necessary for respondent No. 2 to consider entitlement and eligibility of petitioners also. Availability of 50 Hectors of land with petitioners and its substance with either Respondent Nos. 5 or 6A is pressed into service with submission that establishment and site of petitioners was never visited and considered by respondent No. 2. How arbitrarily and mechanically respondent Nos. 5 and 6A have been favoured and pleading of deemed rejection is applied in the case of petitioners is also pointed out with reference to reply affidavit placed on record by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 5 was having only 5 acres of land and respondent No. 6A was not having any administrative building and still they have been granted KVK Center.

Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 submits that place Amravati was not included in KVK scheme initially when petitioners applied. It did not apply after its inclusion and hence there was no question of considering its application. Respondent No. 5 has been allowed to implement that scheme by opening KVK Center at Durgapur in Amravati way back in 1995 and said Center has been functioning effectively since last 20 years. It has received grants worth Rs. 11.5 crores and incurred those expenditure in running and managing various activities. Agriculturists in tribal area in large number have been benefited and are getting benefit of said KVK Center. Respondent No. 5 has employed large number of staff and for it, the situation has now become irreversible. He also points out that the possession of 50 hectors of land is not sine qua non and in appropriate cases, project can begin even with less land. He also relies upon reply affidavit filed by respondent No. 2.

Shri Kale, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6A submits that Amravati has been identified as a possible KVK Center in 1992-93 and the petitioners never applied thereafter. Old application moved by the petitioners in 1989 could not have been considered after 1992-93. Still Respondents considered claim of the petitioners and rejected it for valid reasons. The petitioners have not produced before this court report of State Agricultural University Working of the KVK Center by respondent No. 6A over the years is also pointed out by him to urge that due to passage of time, challenge is rendered academic. Hallmarks of KVK scheme, mode and manner in which grants are released and how respondent No. 6A has to become independent slowly, is also pointed out. Inspection of premises of respondent No. 6A on 07/07/1995 by respondent No. 2, change of headquarters from Parsapur to Ghatkheda suggested by visiting team and its acceptance by respondent No. 6A, grant of final permission on 25/8/1995, are all pressed into service by him. He also invites attention to pleadings on past history and performance of present petitioners with submission that it has not been refuted.

Shri Deo, learned ASGI for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invites attention to conduct of the petitioners and its handling of present litigation. Belated amendment to prayer clause in the petition, not obtaining or pressing proper interim relief are the factors highlighted which according to him disentitle petitioners to any relief in extraordinary jurisdiction. He submits that both KVK Centers in Amravati district are working satisfactorily and there is no scope for allotting one more center there. There is no express prayer as against respondent 6A and petition was about to be dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 29/8/2012. In 12th plan which is under consideration, 5 more Centers are suggested in the State of Maharashtra and the petitioners can apply if said proposal is accepted and the Center is allowed at Nagpur.

KVK scheme is for benefit of farmers and is not a profit making venture. Respondent Nos. 5 or 6A have participated in a welfare major and as such, it cannot be said that respondent Nos. 1 or 2 have distributed any largess. Insistence on following Article 14 is misconceived, as no legal right of the petitioners has been violated. Purpose of scheme is to see that in informal atmosphere farmers get necessary instructions, solutions and vocational training free of cost and near their residence avoiding possibility of any migration, thereby strengthening the agricultural infrastructure and network in rural parts. In this situation, merely because records do not reflect consideration of entitlement or illegibility of petitioners, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. He places reliance upon Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1996) 9 AD 68 : AIR 1997 SC 1236 : (1996) 10 JT 452 : (1996) 8 SCALE 417 : (1997) 1 SCC 134 : (1996) 8 SCR 787 Supp : (1997) AIRSCW 1281 to point out need of molding relief in such cases.

Shri Sambre, learned counsel points out that petition was presented on 25/9/1995 and was sought to be amended on 25/6/1996 after receipt of reply dated 3/6/1996 in this court that KVK Center were already allotted and plea of deemed rejection in it. He invites attention to order of this Court dated 16/8/1998 to show that said reply was not found satisfactory. After question by this court, he also pointed out plea of malafides in the petition. Later order of this Court passed on 17/1/2012 recording similar view is also relied upon. He submits that respondent No. 6A has purchased 58 acres of land later on for KVK after grant of Center to it was assured. Said Center now is not in tribal area that has been shifted at Ghatkheda i.e., near Amravati town itself. Contention that land of the petitioners is being used for other purposes in reply of respondent No. 2 is erroneous. Only 50 acres of land is necessary while petitioners have got much more land. He further submits that if KVK Center is withdrawn, no loss is caused to public revenue because the immovable property purchased or created with assistance of respondent Nos. 1/2 becomes property of respondent No. 2 ICAR.

First question to be gone into is, how KVK could have been allotted by respondent No. 2. Facts on record do not show that any applications were invited for said purpose either by respondent Nos. 1 or 2. Going by reply affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, application first in point of time is by the petitioners and it is received by respondent No. 2 on 7/8/1991. In his reply filed on 3/6/1996, in paragraph 9, respondent No. 2 states that availability of 50 acres of cultivated good fertile land for KVK farm, quality experience in rural development and acceptance of funding pattern of Council were the prescribed conditions for establishing KVK. They state that on the basis of preliminary perusal of proposals of various organizations, respondent Nos. 5 and 6A were identified for Amravati district for further scrutiny by Site Selection Team constituted by ICAR. Large number of proposals are received by it and based on recommendation of experts consisting of representatives of State Agriculture University, the proposals in any particular district are accordingly looked into and sanctioned by competent authority. Rest of the proposals are deemed to be rejected. Thus, from this, it follows that proposal of petitioners was deemed to be rejected. However, no records showing any application of mind qua that proposal are produced and it is admitted position that the expert team or ICAR never visited the site of the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed additional reply on 1/3/2012. In this reply the stand has been taken that proposal of the petitioners did not indicate or demarcate 50 acres of land for purpose of KVK. The lands pointed out in proposal were already being used to run other institutions like Agricultural Science Wing of the Rural Institute. It is, therefore, submitted that it can be safely concluded that said petitioners do not satisfy minimum requirement of 50 acres of land to be exclusively used for the purposes of KVK. It is further pleaded that as petitioners do not fulfill basic requirement, they do not qualify for grant of KVK. This stand obviously is by way of afterthought and is hypothetical also. Having breached these norms and granted Centers to respondents who had very less land or then no administrative building, respondent Nos. 1 or 2 cannot plead that the petitioners who offered about 50 hectors of agricultural land, did not point out a separate or distinct piece or portion to be appropriated for KVK work, that too without bothering to visit those lands.

In same affidavit, respondent No. 2 has pointed out that KVK is central plan scheme fully funded by the Government of India. Upon termination of a particular KVK Center for whatsoever reason, all of movable and immovable property purchased and/or created with Government of India/ ICAR''s assistance becomes property of ICAR.

Bulletin reveals that ICAR provides hundred percent funding for KVK for first 5 years, thereafter funding is shared between ICAR and host institution. For existing KVK, ICAR provided 75% funding after 5 years. Bulletin also shows that 60% funding is assured for KVK to be established in future and no funding is available after 10 years of KVK. Thereafter, either the State Government or the host institution has to support it. It is presumed that in first 5 years all infrastructural facilities in terms of buildings, demonstration units, equipments, vehicles etc. are complete. It is also stated that KVK may arrange for additional funds from State Government or national or international organizations in the form of projects or activities. Based on the local situation, some demonstration units to support the KVK training program are established on the farm. Such units may be for crop production, fruit production, Dairying, goatery, poultry, agriculture, fishery, rabbitry, mushroom cultivation, sericulture etc. Equipments like tractor, improved farm implements, equipments for demonstration units etc. are provided under the scheme. One minibus or a jeep and 2 motorcycles are provided to each KVK. Municipal facilities like roads, sewerage, water supply etc. are required to be provided by host institution. Funds are also made available for simple fencing of the demonstration farm. Bulletin states that KVK is a full-fledged institution consisting of its own buildings, demonstration farm and units, equipments, vehicles etc. Building facilities include main KVK building, farmers hostel, staff quarters and demonstration units. ICAR has developed norms for construction of these buildings. The main KVK building and farmers hostel are provided with adequate furniture and furnishings. The demonstration farm is normally laid down on the 20 hectors farm land provided by the host institution free of cost.

The KVK are implemented by [i] a registered reputed non-government organization having experience in agriculture and rural development, [ii] State Agricultural Universities, [iii] Selected ICAR institutes, [iv] State Governments whenever needed, [v] Central Universities having agricultural facility, [vi] Selected well-established Colleges and [vii] Deemed Universities.

This consideration of the purpose and design of KVK scheme shows that it is run through public revenue and public funds are made or become available to the awardee. Based on the recommendations of Education Commission [1964-66] and the Inter Ministerial Committee [1973], the ICAR decided in principle to establish KVK in the country to provide skill oriented vocational training support to farmers. Bulletin describes it as an innovative science based institution which undertakes vocational training of farmers, farm woman and rural youths; conducts on farm research for technology refinement and frontline demonstrations to promptly demonstrate the latest agricultural technologies to the farmers as well as the extension workers. It functions on principles of collaborative participation of scientists, subject matter experts, extension workers and farmers.

Material above demonstrates the importance of scheme and its prestige. Institutions to whom KVK work is allotted must be feeling proud and it must be adding to their reputation. The financial assistance, property coming up and activities definitely glorify it. About [vii] organizations/ institutions which can undertake that activity are already mentioned supra. They can be "selected" by ICAR. Respondent No. 2 ICAR is State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. When it has to "select", it definitely implies an open competitive process in which all eligible institutions or colleges can participate. Respondent No. 2 has been entrusted with public revenue for its guided utilization in public good through and able and eligible body. This obligation cannot be discharged by undertaking such an exercise privately or clandestinely. Requirement of Article 14 cannot be dispensed with in such matters.

Petitioners have not argued and pointed out any malafides or other similar influence sufficient to vitiate the exercise of allotting KVK Centers. While replying to arguments of respective counsel of respondents, Shri Sambre, learned Counsel pointed out allegations of malafides. He did not refer to them while arguing the case of the petitioners and hence, the respondents also did not argue on that point. Pleadings show that Petitioner No. 1 Society in present matter claims that it owns more than 500 acres of land and runs about 276 institutions in Vidarbha part of State which include Primary Schools, Hostels, High schools, and Junior Colleges, Commerce, Science, Arts, Medical Colleges and other different colleges. It is further stated that petitioner No. 2 has more than 110 acres of land within the limits of Amravati Municipal Corporation. It also points out how after getting knowledge of the scheme, it applied for the same on 16/4/1990. They also state that the then member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Dr. Shrikant Jichkar recommended grant in their favour by sending the communication to Shri Baliram Jhakar, then Minister of Agriculture, Union of India. In the petition it is stated that KVK Centers have been allotted to respondent Nos. 5 and 6A only because of political influence. Respondent No. 5 is managed by Smt. Pratibhatai Patil, who then happened to be Member of Parliament from Amravati and wife of Member of Legislative Assembly Dr. Devisingh Shekhavat. Petition contained similar allegations about political influence of respondent No. 6. It is stated that respondent No. 6 Society is controlled and managed by Smt. Vasudhatai Deshmukh, a Member of Legislative Council from Amravati. Respondent No. 6 has later on been converted as respondent No. 6A. The rejoinder filed by petitioners on 2/4/2012 claims nepotism while allotting KVK to respondent No. 6A also.

We have referred to these factors only to show that neither petitioners nor respondent Nos. 5 or 6A have sought KVK in accordance with Article 14 and everybody tried political influence or pressure to secure it. Petitioners are complaining before this Court only after they failed. Prayer as made originally in the petition sought consideration of request made by petitioners for KVK Center and to sanction it to them after conducting inspection of petitioners'' premises. Interim relief on same lines was also sought. Petition has been amended as per court order dated 15/1/1997 to incorporate challenge to grant of KVK to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Though respondent No. 6 has been later on substituted by respondent No. 6A, prayer clause has not been consequentially amended and hence there is no relief sought against said respondent No. 6A. Writ petition has been filed on 25/9/1995 and no prayers were made to discontinue the release of grants in favour of any of the respondents. No efforts were made to stop its working. Period of about 19 years has expired after filing of petition. Petitioners did not make any efforts to get their dispute settled expeditiously. They are also not alleging any mal-administration or misappropriation by these respondents.

Academic standing or position of petitioners is pointed out by respondent No. 6A in its affidavit filed on record in 1998. They point out that expert team of ICAR inspected college run by petitioners in 1976-77. They claim that experts found that said college had no standards and schemes to be implemented were only on papers. Team recommended State Government to discontinue grant-in-aid to that college. Respondent No. 6A also claims that grants given by ICAR were in fact stopped. They also state that it was suggested that said College should be handed over to competent institution who would run it for the benefit of students. Though petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit on 2/4/2012, they have not traversed these facts. We only note that KVK Centers were to be allotted after 18 to 19 years of this inspection and remark in 1976-77.

Though delay in adjudication of matter pending in court may not always be fatal, in present situation, when we cannot blame either respondent No. 5 or respondent No. 6A and find it guilty of illegally procuring KVK Center; passage of long time, may be one of the relevant factors to be looked into while moulding relief. Petitioners have permitted said respondents to draw grants and to use it or invest it. The investment is not in dispute and said respondents have pointed out how they have developed further in the field. Petitioners have not pointed out any falsehood in these claims. When petitioners themselves have attempted to bring political pressure, we are not inclined to upset the grant in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6A at this point of time and in this situation. The grant could have been unsettled had petitioner succeeded in pointing out how respondent Nos. 5 and 6A are instrumental in illegally procuring the same. As noted by us supra, the petitioners did not even choose to urge said ground of malafides before us. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6A have created properties and employed staff which must have acquired proficiency. All this and utilization of public revenue by respondent Nos. 5 and 6A cannot now be allowed to go waste.

Learned ASGI has pointed out that Nagpur is under consideration in current plan and if it is approved, petitioners who have sufficient lands at Nagpur can also apply for KVK Center. He stated that it is not possible to provide one more Center at Amravati. These facts are not in dispute before us. Therefore, though we find that injustice has been done to the petitioners by not considering their proposal for KVK Center at Amravati, except for such declaration; no other relief can be given to them. They are free to apply for such Center elsewhere as per scheme and as per their eligibility in accordance with law. Needless to mention that such application, if preferred by them, shall be looked into on its own merit by respondent No. 2 ICAR or respondent No. 1, as the case may be.

We accordingly declare that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not have overlooked and ignored claim of petitioner No. 2 for grant of KVK Center at Amravati. Allotment made to respondent Nos. 5 and 6A by ignoring said claim and without following open competitive selection process though not legal, we do not quash and set aside the same in present facts. We direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to follow open competitive selection process for said purpose in future.

We are conscious of the fact that when substantial periodical grants are made available from the State Authorities concerned and utilized by the KVK selected atleast two per districts, aiming at training and benefit of farmers in the matters of cultivating grains/seeks/agricultural produce for better control of insects, parasites etc. and facilitating proper and adequate fertilizers, we feel it necessary to issue a guideline for the appropriate Government to provide an agricultural expert with a team of technical auditors for each KVK for its technical audit as to the grants made/finances made and furthermore, whether the same were properly utilized for the said purposes, by making on-field observations as may be necessary, public money has to be appropriated justly and properly for the purposes aimed at by the Government.

With these observations, directions and with liberty to petitioners to apply for KVK Center accordingly in future as per scheme and eligibility, we partly allow the writ petition and dispose of it. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.