Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Model Action for Rural Change, a society and public trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, challenged a letter dated 02.07.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Maharashtra State and Chief Executive Officer of Vasundhara Panlot Vikas Yantrana, respondent No.2. The letter instructed the Chairman, District Watershed Cell cum Data Centre, Nasik, respondent No.3, to cancel the agreement entered into with the petitioner for implementation of watershed project IWMP-36/2014-15 covering 5011.28 hectares. The petitioner was empaneled as a voluntary organization in 2011 to implement watershed projects under the Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008. It was allotted a first project, Nasik IWMP-24, initially covering 4989 hectares, which was later extended to 5513.80 hectares on 05.03.2014, and a second project, Nasik IWMP-36, with an area of 5011.28 hectares, allotted on 21.01.2015. Both projects fell within tribal areas. The petitioner completed more than 50% of work in the first project, while detailed project report of the second project was not yet sanctioned at state level. The total treatment area of the two projects was 10,525.08 hectares, exceeding 10,000 hectares. The Accountant General raised an audit objection in an audit memorandum dated 13.03.2018, pointing out that no voluntary organization could be assigned more than 10,000 hectares in a district under paragraph 35.2(i) of the 2008 guidelines. In its 28th meeting held on 17.03.2018, the State Level Nodal Agency decided to cancel the second project. The impugned letter of 02.07.2018 followed this decision. The petitioner contended that the guidelines were not mandatory and should be broadly followed, not read like a statute. It also argued that forest land of 2196 hectares in the first project and 907 hectares in the second project should be excluded from the total area, bringing the total below 10,000 hectares, because no non-forest activities could be carried out in forest areas. The respondents argued that the total treatment area of 10,525.08 hectares exceeded the cap; that forest area could not be omitted from project area as the Integrated Watershed Management Programme was implemented as per central guidelines; that cancellation was based on audit objection and the decision of the State Level Nodal Agency; and that the writ petition was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The court reserved judgment on 22.07.2021 and pronounced on 07.09.2021. The provided text does not include the final decision.
Headnote
A) Watershed Development - Project Allotment - Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008, Para 35.2 - Limit on area per voluntary organization - The guideline states that no voluntary organization can be assigned more than 10,000 hectares area in a district at any point of time. The petitioner contended that the limitation was directory, not mandatory, and that forest land should be excluded; respondents contended that the total treatment area of two projects allotted to petitioner was 10,525.08 hectares exceeding 10,000 hectares, and forest land cannot be omitted (Paras 15-16, 18.1-18.2, 18.6). B) Administrative Law - Cancellation of Work Order - Article 226 Constitution of India - Ground of Arbitrariness - Petitioner challenged letter dated 02.07.2018 cancelling second project on the ground that it was arbitrary and unreasonable; respondents justified cancellation based on audit objection and decision of State Level Nodal Agency in its 28th meeting held on 17.03.2018 (Paras 2-3, 17, 18.3, 18.7). C) Watershed Development - Empanelment and MoU - Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008 - Implementation by State Agency - Petitioner was empaneled as voluntary organization in 2011 and allotted two projects: IWMP-24 and IWMP-36, with MoUs executed; first project area increased from 4989 to 5513.80 hectares, second project area 5011.28 hectares; work completed 40% in first project and DPR of second project not yet sanctioned at state level (Paras 8-12, 18.4). D) Statutory Interpretation - Guidelines vs Statutory Rules - Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008 - Binding Nature - Petitioner argued that guidelines should be broadly followed and not read as a statute; respondents argued that guidelines as revised in 2011 are binding for implementation of Integrated Watershed Management Programme (Paras 19, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether paragraph 35.2 of Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008 imposes a mandatory cap of 10,000 hectares per voluntary organization in a district; whether forest land should be excluded from computation of total project area; whether the impugned cancellation letter dated 02.07.2018 is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Law Points
- Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects
- 2008
- paragraph 35.2(i) limits voluntary organization to 10
- 000 hectares in a district
- guidelines are not mandatory but broadly followed
- forest area cannot be excluded from project area for cap calculation
- administrative action challenge under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- State Level Nodal Agency decision based on audit objection
