In the backdrop of “bonhomie” witnessed between the Congress and the JD(U) with the latter’s support to Mr Pranab Mukherjee in the presidential election, the UPA government in an affidavit to the Supreme Court has given a “clean chit” to the Nitish Kumar government on certain changes made in the guidelines for MPLAD scheme.
The Bihar government’s guidelines had come under the Supreme Court scanner after JD(U) rebel MP Jai Narain Nishad had filed a PIL in February making certain direct accusations against CM Nitish Kumar for making “drastic” changes in the scheme, which he claimed were “contrary” to the norms laid down by the Centre.
“At the very outset it is humbly submitted that the resolution passed on November 10, 2011 by the Bihar government provides the procedure for implementation of MPLADS works in the state within the framework of the guidelines (of Centre). No adverse effect in implementation of the scheme is perceived on account of the procedure prescribed under the resolution,” the Union ministry of statistics and programme implementation in its affidavit said.
A bench of Justices D.K. Jain and Madan B. Lokur after having a glance at the affidavit during a brief hearing on Friday, adjourned the case pointing out to Mr Nishad’s counsel that the Centre has found nothing wrong in the norms laid down by the Bihar government. Under the scheme an MP gets `5 crore from the Central fund annually for development works recommended by him or her to the state government.
“It is further stated that the Bihar government has not framed new guidelines for implementation of MPLADS within the state. The procedure adopted by the Bihar government in the form of the resolution of November 10, 2011 is in line with the existing provision contained in MPLADS guidelines laid down by the Centre,” the affidavit said, making it apparent that no case is made out against the Bihar government.
Mr Nishad in his PIL had alleged that the Bihar CM had written a letter to the ministry of statistics and programme implementation in August 2011 stating that since his government had discontinued the MLA and MLC’s area development plan, therefore, no “dedicated machinery” existed in the state for implementing the scheme.