Sikkim: Government faces fresh jolt after High Court passes stay order for the resident of Chungthang

The Government of Sikkim faces a fresh jolt after the Sikkim High Court passed an interim Stay Order on September 1, for implementation of the Notification published by Rural Development Department on May 15, earlier this year stating that the very Notification appears to be not in consonance with Section 11(b) of the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993.

The resident of Chungthang, North Sikkim Chungchung Lepcha challenged the implementation of said Notification in the High Court stating that the said Notification published by Rural Development Department is contrary to the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution of India, in addition to which it curtails the special powers of the Sabhapati of the Gram Panchayat conferred by the provisions of the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993.

The State Government by the way of Notification constituted a committee to select beneficiaries pertaining to various rural development schemes including Sikkim Garib Awas Yozna citing the ground that in view of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and its extension and due to guidelines on social distancing, there is no possible to conduct Gram Sabha.

As per Notification, Block Development Officers are empowered and made supervisory head to select the Sikkim Garib Aawas Yojana, instead of elected representative of the grassroots government and the panchayats are made mere members, Village Administrative Assistant are and Assistant Engineer of the BAC are also members of the select committee. However, 73rd Constitutional Amendment has empowered the Gram Panchayats for selection of any Government beneficiaries.

While hearing the writ petition Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami stayed the Notification till September 9, next week.

Also Read: Sikkim: Health department issues SOP for inter-state movement w.e.f 1st of September

Yam Kumar Subba, Counsel for the petitioner urged the Court praying for Stay on impugned Notification that amongst others that Section 11 (b) of the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993 provides that identification of beneficiaries for implementation of development schemes pertaining to a village is a function entrusted to Gram Sabha and therefore, the notification is in contravention of the aforesaid provision.

In response to the petitioner, Vivek Kohli, Advocate General has sought to justify the impugned notification by placing reliance on, amongst others, Sections 10 of the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993 and Article 243(G) of the Constitution of India and he submits that the notification was issued in the prevailing situation arising out of COVID-19 and it cannot be said that such notification in any way encroaches upon the functions of the Gram Sabha. He also submits that the prayer for interim order may be considered after an affidavit is allowed to be filed by the respondents by 04 September, so that a comprehensive view of the matter can be taken.

As, prima facie, the impugned notification appears to be not in consonance with Section 11(b) of the Sikkim Panchayat Act, 1993, the impugned notification dated 15.05.2020 is stayed till 09.09.2020. It is made clear that after the affidavits are exchanged, interim prayer made by the petitioner in I.A No.01 of 2020 shall finally be considered.

Readers like you make Inside Northeast’s work possible

To support our brand of fearless and investigative journalism, support us HERE.

Download:                                                                       

The Inside Northeast app HERE for News, Views, and Reviews from Northeast India.

Do keep following us for news on-the-go. We deliver the Northeast.