Kerala High Court Sets Guidelines on Prioritization of Jal Jeevan Mission Projects, Vacates Interim Stay, and Observes “Welfare State Objectives Cannot Be Stalled” While Emphasizing Transparency in Fund Allocation

Court’s Decision:

The Kerala High Court decided to vacate the interim order granted by the single bench for two months. The interim order had prevented payments for six projects under the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), a Central Government-sponsored welfare initiative aimed at providing drinking water to underserved areas.

The court noted that continuing the interim stay would obstruct critical welfare objectives, particularly the supply of drinking water to remote regions. It directed that the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) and the State Government must comply with the JJM guidelines. The funds provided by the Central Government were to be used exclusively for the six prioritized projects, and any leftover funds could then be utilized for pending payments as per the seniority list.

Facts:

1. Background of the Dispute:
   • The Kerala Water Authority filed appeals challenging interim orders in writ petitions that had stayed the execution of six projects approved under the JJM.
   • The dispute arose when the Central Government selected six out of 67 proposed projects for funding under the scheme. The petitioners, primarily contractors, argued that this selection violated the seniority list for payments and left their dues unpaid.
2. Scheme Guidelines:
   • JJM is a scheme where the Central and State Governments share funding in a 50:50 ratio.
   • The scheme prioritized six projects, citing their immediate need to ensure access to clean drinking water.
3. Claims of the Petitioners:
   • The petitioners alleged favoritism and bias in the selection of the six projects.
   • They argued that their pending dues of ₹1549.88 crores were ignored, violating earlier court orders directing payment based on seniority.
4. KWA’s Stand:
   • The KWA argued that the projects were selected by the Central Government and not by the State Government.
   • Delaying these projects would deprive remote areas of critical water resources and halt the implementation of the welfare initiative.

Issues:

1. Maintainability of Writ Appeals:
   • Could the Kerala Water Authority file intra-court appeals against the interim orders of the single bench?
2. Bias in Project Selection:
   • Was the selection of six projects arbitrary and in violation of the seniority list?
3. Impact of Interim Orders:
   • Did the interim orders amount to granting final relief to the petitioners?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Violation of Seniority List:
   • The petitioners claimed that the payments for the six selected projects bypassed the seniority list, disadvantaging contractors whose dues were pending.
2. Bias and Partiality:
   • They alleged that the selection process lacked transparency and favored certain contractors.
3. Non-Compliance with Prior Judgments:
   • The petitioners argued that the KWA failed to follow prior court orders directing adherence to the seniority list for payment of dues.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Guidelines Followed:
   • The respondents contended that the Central Government, not the State, selected the six projects based on established guidelines under the JJM.
2. Welfare Objectives:
   • They argued that the interim orders would derail the implementation of urgent projects aimed at providing drinking water to remote areas.
3. Limited Scope of Interim Orders:
   • The KWA claimed that the interim stay was effectively granting final relief, as it prevented any progress on the approved projects.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Maintainability of Appeals:
   • The court referred to Thomas P.T. v. Bijo Thomas and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Saju A.R., where it was held that interim orders should not render writ petitions infructuous. In this case, the interim order by the single bench essentially granted final relief, justifying the maintainability of the intra-court appeals.
2. Guidelines under JJM:
   • The scheme’s guidelines allowed for the prioritization of projects by the Central Government. The allocation of ₹288.75 crores for the six projects was within the scope of these guidelines.
3. Doctrine of Res Judicata:
   • The court clarified that this doctrine did not apply because the issues in the current appeals involved new facts and documents that were not considered in earlier litigation.

Precedent Analysis:

The court relied on the following judgments:

1. Thomas P.T. v. Bijo Thomas (2021):
   • This case emphasized that interim orders should not render the main writ petition meaningless.
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Saju A.R. (2021):
   • The court held that interim reliefs should not preemptively grant the final relief sought in a writ petition.

These precedents supported the court’s decision to vacate the interim order.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Impact on Welfare Projects:
   • The court observed that the six selected projects were vital for providing drinking water to remote areas. Delaying these projects would defeat the welfare objectives of the JJM.
2. No Bias in Selection:
   • The court found no evidence of favoritism or partiality in the selection of projects, as they were chosen by the Central Government based on established guidelines.
3. Interim Orders Prejudicial:
   • The court noted that the interim orders effectively halted the implementation of the projects, which was equivalent to granting final relief.
4. Adherence to Guidelines:
   • The court directed the KWA and the State Government to strictly follow the JJM guidelines, ensuring that any leftover funds after completing the selected projects would be used to clear pending dues as per the seniority list.

Conclusion:

The court vacated the interim order for two months, allowing the six projects to proceed. It clarified that payments for these projects should not affect dues owed to contractors for other projects, which must be paid according to the seniority list. The writ appeals were disposed of with these directions, leaving the broader issues to be decided in the pending writ petitions.

Implications:

1. Balance Between Welfare and Fairness:
   • The judgment emphasizes the need to prioritize public welfare while ensuring procedural fairness in fund allocation.
2. Accountability of State Agencies:
   • The court highlighted the importance of transparency in the selection and implementation of projects.
3. Legal Framework for Welfare Projects:
   • This decision reinforces the principle that welfare objectives cannot be stalled due to procedural delays, while also ensuring that contractors’ rights are protected.

This detailed judgment provides clarity on the implementation of welfare schemes, balancing urgent public needs with fairness and transparency in administrative processes.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Strikes Down CBDT Circular Imposing Time Limit on TDS Refunds: “Excess Tax Deposited Under Section 195 Cannot Be Retained Unlawfully”