LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE … · in 1992 by introducing the 73rd Amendment to...

CENTRE FOR STUDY OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND INCLUSIVE POLICYManipur University

CANCHIPUR, IMPHAL WEST-795003, MANIPUR

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE FUNCTIONING OF

PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTION IN MANIPUR

ISSN 2393-879×

CSSEIP, MU, WORKING PAPER, VOL 50, SEPTEMBER, 2018

Dr.ThathangVaiphei

Copyright Reserved

This research paper is a peer reviewed multi-disciplinary monthly working paper of the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University, Copyright of all research papers/articles will remain with the Centre. No portion of the contents may be reproduced in any form without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Disclaimer

The views and interpretations in the working paper are those of the respective author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University.

No. of Copies : 100

Rate : Rs. 100/-

Printed @ RIDJ Offset Printers, New Checkon Road, Imphal

Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive PolicyManipur University

Canchipur, Imphal West,Pin - 795003, Manipur, INDIA

Phone : 0385-2435147Email : [email protected]

Website: www.manipuruniv.ac.in

AuthorDR. THATHANG VAIPHEI completed his BA (Hons) in Political Science from Kirorimal College, University of Delhi, MA in Political Science from Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), MPhil and PhD from Centre for South Asian Studies, School of International Studies, JNU, NewDelhi. He is serving as an Assistant Professor (Political Science) in the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University. He is undertaking intense research on Decentralization, Political Exclusion, Tourism and Tribal Polity in the North East India especially Manipur and presented score of papers on these areas in Regional, National, International and more importantly at the grass root level seminars. He had published some of these papers in reputed books and Journals.

He recently completed one Major Research Project of UGC on the topic Democratic Decentralization in the North East: An Analytical Study of the Working of Panchayati Raj Institution and Autonomous District Council in Manipur and presently working on another major research project on “Gaps Identification on Skill Development in the Hill Areas of Manipur” under Tribal Research Institute, Department of Tribal Affairs and Hills, Government of Manipur. He also has few edited books and working papers on the theme Social Exclusion to his credit.

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE FUNCTIONING OF PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTION IN MANIPUR

CSSEIP, MU, WORKING PAPER, VOL 50, SEPTEMBER, 2018 | 1

EDITORIAL BOARD

Chief EditorProf. E. Bijoykumar SinghDirector, Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University

Executive EditorDr. Thiyam Bharot SinghReader, Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University

Editorial BoardDr. Thathang VaipheiAssistant ProfessorCentre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University

Dr. Yaiphaba NingthoujamAssistant ProfessorCentre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University

Dr. Kh. Gourashyam SinghResearch AssociateCentre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Manipur University

Advisory BoardProf Virginious XaxaDeputy DirectorTata Institute of Social Sciences, Guwahati

Prof. S Mangi SinghDepartment of Political Science, Manipur University

Prof. S Kunjeshwori DeviDepartment of History, Manipur University


2 | CSSEIP, MU, WORKING PAPER, VOL 50, SEPTEMBER, 2018

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK

The Working Paper Series is being published by the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion & Inclusive Policy (CSSEIP), Manipur University every month since February 2015. Relevant themes and areas are selected and academicians, researchers, and intellectuals are invited to contribute their work or other experiences in the research of poverty, deprivation, marginalisation, social exclusion and inclusive policies. The Working Paper Series contribute to critical inquiry and expand the limited horizon of knowledge and experience of different dimensions of social exclusion. The papers also serve as a forum to discuss new ideas and concepts with the framework of social exclusion. It also makes an enquiry into the causes how the present social structure generates different forms of social exclusion, deprivation and discrimination of individual, groups and people over the years. Apart from paucity of income, physical deprivation, impoverishment and lack of essential infrastructure, it may be mentioned that socially excluded individual, groups and people have been facing much difficulties and they are usually associated with problems of depression, anxiety, stress, emotional problems, impatient, panic and worry. These are very important issues in modern society. Many of these papers will enhance the knowledge levels of public and also provide key inputs government in policy formulation based on larger social, economic and political perspective. The Working Paper Series also serves a yardstick in which issues of poverty, unemployment, deprivation and marginalisation of individual, groups and people may be analysed in different forms.I am happy to present this paper entitled “Local Self Government in India: A Study of the Functioning of Panchayati Raj Institution in Manipur”, by Dr.Thathang Vaiphei. The study argues that substantive democratisation works when all people are empowered to participate in governance, ask questions, take decisions, raise resources, prioritise the social and economic agenda for local development and ensure social and political accountability. Such a vision of democracy requires democratisation from below and a true devolution of power to the people. The paper suggests that nurturing of local democratic culture and local self-government would be the most important means to realise the promise of Indian democracy: an inclusive, capable, participatory, accountable and effective direct democracy at the grassroots level.

(Dr. Thiyam Bharat Singh)Executive Editor



GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

The Working Paper (WP) published by the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion & Inclusive Policy (CSSEIP), Manipur University is a refereed publication. The WP is a forum for stimulating discussion, dissemination of research findings and empirical information in the broad areas of social science research. Papers submitted to it should make either a methodological contribution in social science research or a contribution to policy discussion.

The WP aimed at encouraging inter-disciplinary research and analysis to enrich literature of social exclusion and for deeper understanding of the dynamics of social exclusion for effective inclusive policy making. We welcome policy makers, Government functionaries, academicians, researchers, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to contribute their invaluable work for consideration as WP for wider dissemination.

Contributions to the working paper should be original papers and should not be under consideration for any other publication at the same time. The author should clearly indicate the status of the paper at the time of submission.

The author should consistently use only one style of references (APA, Harvard or others) and use of English spellings (UK or US) should be consistent throughout the paper. Poorly written papers will not be considered for further processing. The responsibility for copyediting the working paper depends on the contributors, although the publisher will provide a final, copyedit.

WP should be submitted electronically to <[email protected]> or to <[email protected]>. Paper may be up to the limit of 8,000 words in length including figures and tables. The paper should be accompanied by an abstract of around 200 words along with the official details such as affiliations, postal and e-mail. Contributors should also send their brief CV.



LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE FUNCTIONING OF PANCHAYATI RAJ

INSTITUTION IN MANIPUR

ABSTRACT:

Local self government can be defined as meaningful authority devolved to local units of governance that are accessible and accountable to the local citizenry, who enjoy full political rights and liberty. Devolution is a form of decentralization which seeks to create independent level of authority of government with functions and responsibilities. It is an arrangement for central or state governments to relinquish some of its functions to the new units of government that are outside its control. This can be achieved by providing for it in the Constitution itself or by ordinary law of the land. Substantive democratisation works when all people are empowered to participate in governance, ask questions, take decisions, raise resources, prioritise the social and economic agenda for local development and ensure social and political accountability. Such a vision of democracy requires democratisation from below and a true devolution of power to the people. The nurturing of local democratic culture and local self-government would be the most important means to realise the promise of Indian democracy: an inclusive, capable, participatory, accountable and effective direct democracy at the grassroots level.

PANCHAYATI RAJ SYSTEM IN INDIA :

It was only in second half of 1980s there was growing awareness that ‘top to bottom’approach was ineffective in delivering the government schemes to the real beneficiaries. In 1992, through 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRI) and Urban Local Bodies were given constitutional status. In the period that followed, though states were reluctant to devolve powers to local bodies, the PRIs have made a mark in functioning at the grass root level ushering in participative democracy. Through affirmative action, women and depressed sections of the societies began to take active part in local governments. The importance of self-sufficient villages with local administrative structure, planning and catering to the local needs is being realized today with the prevalence of rural distress and migration to cities. To make the PRI system work in the envisaged manner, there is an essential need of devolving political and financial powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions as per the Directive Principles of State Policy mentioned in Article 40 of the Constitution of India which says that “The



State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as unit of self-government.”

Though the idea of local government was discussed and debated in the wake of the movement for freedom in India, it took 45 years after independence to make it a constitutional guarantee. The present three-tier PanchayatiRaj system, with 50% representation for women and provision of representation for dalit and tribal communities, provides a much-needed space for inclusive democracy. It took 45 years of political and policy process to move this from an aspiration of the Directive Principles to a justiciable guarantee of the Constitution.

Panchayats were included in Article 40 under the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India. The Post- independence phase of Panchayat Raj is marked with significant developments. On the recommendation of the G.V.K. Rao (1985) and L.M Shinghvi (1986) committees, the Rajiv Gandhi Government in 1989 introduced a Bill for amending the Constitution for giving Constitutional status to Panchayats, but failed to pass the Bill. The Congress Government under P.V Narasimha Rao amended the Constitution in 1992 by introducing the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution.Henceforth, the Panchayati Raj Institution (PRIs) became a Constitutional machinery for local self-governance in ruralIndia.

The tribal dominated states under the 5thand 6th Schedules of the Constitution were, however, given option either to introduce Panchayati Raj Institutions or to continue with their traditional self-governing institutions. All the states of India including 5thand 6th Schedule States except Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram amended their Panchayati Raj Act to accommodate the provisions of the 73rd Amendment Act.Thus, in the Northeast, three states viz. Mizoram, Nagaland and Meghalaya are exempted from the purview of the 73rd Amendment.

The Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 mandates provisions for:

1) Establishment of a three-tier structure (Village Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or intermediate level Panchayat and Zilla Parishad or District level Panchayat).

2) Establishment of Gram Sabhas at the village level. Regular elections to Panchayats every five years.



3) Proportionate seat reservation for SCs/STs.

4) Reservation of not less than 1/3 seats for women.

5) Constitution of State Finance Commissions to recommended measures to improve the finances of Panchayats.

The Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 vests power in the State Government to endow Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government such as: Preparation of plans and their execution for economic development and social justice in relation to 29 subjects listed in the XI schedule of the Constitution. Authority to Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees. Transfer of taxes, duties, tolls and fees collected by the States to Panchayats.

PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS IN MANIPUR

Background of Modern Panchayat System in Manipur: In early days, there were some forms of organisations like panchyats, such as group communities, clans or salais in different parts of the valley areas of Manipur. In 1510 the entire Meetei population was divided into Panas. The Panas are like sub-divisions in a modern state. The head of each family or tribe would select from his family or tribe the men, not below the age of 17 years, who can render service (Lallup) to the king for and on behalf of the pana to which they belonged. The pana system was abolished in 1949. Lallup was a system of group of people serving the king at the Capital. Lallup covered all the works such as social, economic and military. The heads of the Panas were the appointees from amongst the favourites of the king. Their offices were established in and around the palace. There was also a branch of Lallup called Khundin, the duty of which was to see that men liable to Lallup performed their work well. For due and efficient working of the Lallup, the Panas had two departments namely Shanglen and Shangumba. The nobles of the king hold these departments. Besides, there was an office known as Lallup Chingba which was an active intermedidary between the officers at the capital and the men in the village. The Lallup system had another work allocation called Yumnak Mashin. The Yumnak Mashin was the functional distribution to each Yumnak and the name of the Yumnak was given according to the work that the Yumnak had been doing. The Lallup system was abolished on 29th September, 1892 at the time of the coronation of King Churachand Singh.



Churachand Singh who was a minor at the post-Anglo Manipuri War 1891 was appointed the Chief of Manipur. During his minority the administration was looked after by the Political Agent and Superintendent of the State. He was given the powers to adopt such measure as were beneficial to the people, but with instructions of the British authority as regards the existing customs, traditions and institutions. After attainment of majority Churachand Singh administered the State, aided and advised by a durbar. There were two institutions at the capital called Durbar and Cheirap. The Durbar was the assembly of the officials of which the king was the head. The Durbar was the highest criminal court in the State and tried all cases beyond the jurisdiction of Cheirap except as regard hill tribes. The first meeting of the first Manipur State Durbar was held at Imphal on the 17th May, 1907. Churachand Singh who was the president of the durbar presided over the meeting on 14th Hiyangei (October-November) 1892, the process of decentralization started in the administration of Manipur. The village panchayats were established on the same day in Manipur. Each panchayat was known as Shalis Panchayat at the beginning of the twentieth century (1903-1955). It consisted of five members. All the members were directly elected by the people by verdict of majority. The method of election was thus that the voters stood in different rows to choose their own respective candidates. There could be as many candidates as possible for five members to be chosen only. Out of the rows of the standing voter, five rows of higher order of the same would be counted for the purpose of declaring chosen. The pattern was thus that heads were counted, but not the contents of the head. Such pattern of panchayat is like that of Nyaya Panchayats. Its main functions were to dispose of civil and criminal cases in the rural areas. This type of village panchayat was highly honoured by the people of Manipur. On 30th Hiyangei 1903 Shalis Panchayats were set up in the villages of Kakching Khullen, Sekmai Khunbi, Shikhong Ningel.

Chowkidars were appointed by the Government of Manipur for every hundred house for the co-ordination of Shalis panchayat. Chowkidars reported daily to the panchayat of their circles and collected taxes for the payment of their circles and collected taxes for the payment of their salaries. With the passage of time, increased the functions of the Shalis Pachayat by adding important functions such as construction and maintenance of roads, cleaning of streets, provision of public latrines, vaccination and anti-malaria operations, prevention of epidemic diseases and other medical relief.

The responsible form of government was established in Manipur under the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947. There was a council of six



Ministers who were elected by the Manipur State Assembly comprising representatives elected on adult franchise and on the principle of joint electorate from General Hill and Mohamadan constituencies at the ratio of 30:18:3 with additional two seats for the representatives of educational and commercial interests. The Ministers were in charge of their own portfolios. The Manipur State Court Act, 1947 empowered the village Panchayats to administer justice in civil and criminal cases in the valley. It aimed at decentralization of powers and functions of the panchayats. On the other hand, the Manipur Hill People Regulation, 1947 vested powers to the village authorities in the hill areas to settle disputes of criminal and civil nature.

The Manipur Constitution Act (1947) did not last long as the Manipur State was merged with the Indian Dominion on 15th October, 1949 under the Merger Agreement.

In 1956, Indian Parliament passed the Territorial Council Act. This Act made Manipur one of the Union Territories of Indian Union and provided a Council for Manipur consisting of 30 members to be elected by the people and two other members to be nominated by the Government. The Territorial Council had very limited powers over the administration of Manipur. The members of the first Territorial Council of Manipur was elected by the people in 1957. Manipur became a Union Territory under the 10th Amendment Act of Indian Constitution in 1962. In 1972, Manipur became a full-fledged state. It provided for a Legislative Assembly consisting of 60 members to be directly elected by the people.

Methodology: The Study of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) was conducted in four valley districts of Manipur which comprises four Zilla Parishad viz. Bishnupur, Thoubal, Imphal East and Imphal West.

Random sampling technique was utilized for selecting the areas, respondents and Gram Panchayats. The study covers Eighty Nine (89) Villages under Fifty Nine (59) Gram Sabha in fourteen Sub:Divisions of the four Zilla Parishad. The sample under study constitute 85.4% Rural areas and 14.6% Urban areas in the four Valley Districts with the following breakup; Bishnupur (29.8%), Thoubal (28.8%), Imphal East (25.2%) and Imphal West (16.1%).

The sample is further represented by people from all walks of life which can be establish from the educational qualification, religion, community and occupation of the respondents. Illiterate constitute 12.4%, Primary Level 28%, High School 29% and Graduate and above constitute 29% from the



total sample size as far as the educational qualification of the respondents are concern. The sample comprises people belonging to different community of which SC constitute (17.9 %), ST (3.4%), OBC (13.8%), Muslim (8.9%), General (53.3%) and Others (2.6%) respectively.

The occupational, Average Monthly Income and religious break-up of the sample are presented as follows;

1) Religion Break-Up: Hindu-78.3%, Christian – 3.5 %, Islam – 8.9% and Traditional Religion – 9.00%.

2) Occupational Break-Up: Cultivator- 33.1%, Business – 21.7%, Employment in Private Sector – 34.6%, Government Employment – 5.5% and Unemployment – 4.8%.

3) Average Monthly Income: Up to Rs.5000/- (62.3%), Rs. 5000-10000 (23%), Rs.10,000 – 20,000 (8%), Rs.20,000 – 30,000 (2.6%) and Rs.30,000 and above (2.4%).

The Study adopted random sampling in identifying 1500 respondents from various communities living in the four valley districts of Manipur. The study utilized the method of comprehensive printed questionnaire. Out of the 1500 questionnaire that were given out, 1350 questionnaire fill-up questionnaire returned. Out of this, 150 questionnaires were rejected as they were incomplete or inconsistencies detected in the answer provided by the respondents. Applying this method, the study adopted a total valid sample size of 1121 respondents which was randomly choose from fifty Nine (59) villages of which Male constitute 80.5% and Female 19.4%. These selected 1121 respondents were interviewed. The sample is represented by people belonging to the Age group between 18-30 (20.3%), 31-40 (29.6%), 41-50 (36.8%), 51-60 (12%) and 61 and above 1.3% of the total sample size.

Both Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods were employed in the Study. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for the purpose of data analysis and interpretation.



Table No. 1: Name of Sample Zilla Parishad

Sl. No.

Zilla Parishad

Sample Size

Percentage Rural %Ur-ban

%

1 Bishnupur 334 29.8

2 Imphal East 283 25.2

3Imphal West

181 16.1

4 Thoubal 323 28.8

Total 1121 100.0 957 85.4% 164 14.6%

Table No.2-A: Name of Sample Gram Panchayats

Sl No. Gram Panchayat Sample Size Percent1 Angtha 9 .82 Arong Nongmaikhong 14 1.23 Awangkhunou 14 1.24 Bamon Kampu 12 1.15 Bijoy Govinda 16 1.46 Borayangbi 35 3.17 Chanam Sandrok 20 1.88 Dibong 20 1.89 Heingang 16 1.410 Heirok Part 1 8 .711 Hilghat 15 1.312 Hiyanglam 13 1.213 Irong Chesaba 22 2.014 Kanglatongbi 10 .915 Keinou 40 3.616 Keirao 16 1.417 Kha Thinungei 50 4.518 Khurkhul 13 1.219 Kiyamgei Muslim/Arapti 8 .720 Konthoujam 15 1.321 Kwakta 17 1.522 Laipham Khunou 13 1.2



23 Laphupat Komlakhong 6 .524 Leirongthel 29 2.625 Leishangthem 21 1.926 Luwangsangbam 11 1.027 Maibam Leikai 15 1.328 Malom 21 1.929 Moijing 36 3.230 Nachou 13 1.231 Naharup 29 2.632 Naoriya Pkhanglakpa Heinouk-

hongnembi 8 .7

33 Ngaikhong Khullen 14 1.234 Ngangkha Lawai 28 2.535 Oinam Sawombung 17 1.536 Pallel 22 2.037 Patsoi 11 1.038 Phayeng 15 1.339 Phubala 31 2.840 Pukhao 28 2.541 Sangaiyumpham Pt. II 17 1.542 Sawombung 24 2.143 Tekcham 22 2.044 Tentha 13 1.245 Thinungei 19 1.746 Torbung 23 2.1

Table No.2 -B : Name of Sample Gram Panchayats

47 Toubul 21 1.948 Tumukhong Moiranpurel 21 1.949 Uchiwa 15 1.350 Utlou 26 2.351 Wabagai 12 1.152 Waikhong 22 2.053 Waiton 30 2.754 Wangbal 29 2.6



55 Wangjing 12 1.156 Wangoo 31 2.857 Yambem 11 1.058 Yarou Bamdiar 22 2.0

Total 1121 100.0

Table No. 3: Name of Sample Sub-Division

Sl.No Sub-Division Sample Size Percent1 Bishnupur 98 8.72 Jiribam 35 3.13 Kakching 97 8.74 Keirao Bitra 97 8.75 Lamphelpat 39 3.56 Lamshang 38 3.47 Lilong 96 8.68 Moirang 170 15.29 Nambol 66 5.910 Patsoi 62 5.511 Porompat 69 6.212 Sawombung 82 7.313 Thoubal 130 11.614 Wangoi 42 3.7

Total 1121 100.0

Table No.4-A : Name of Sample Villages under Panchayati Raj Institution

Sl.No Villages No. of Sample Percentage

1 Irong Chesaba Makha 11 1.02 Irong Chesaba Mayai Leikai 11 1.03 Keirao Langdum 9 .84 Nagaram Part - I (Tangkhul Avenue) 7 .65 Awangjiri 12 1.16 Awangkhunou 14 1.2



7 Bamon Kampu 12 1.18 Borayangbi 12 1.19 Chanam Sandrok 9 .810 Chandrakhong 14 1.211 Chingdong Leikai 20 1.812 Haobam Marak, Irom Leikai 8 .713 Harinagar Meitei 15 1.314 Heingang 16 1.415 Heirok 8 .716 Hiyanglam 13 1.217 ITam 24 2.118 Kanglatongbi Mandir 10 .919 Karpursungba kabui 9 .820 Kasom Tampak 11 1.021 Keikhu Kabui 11 1.022 Keinou 24 2.123 Keirao Loukon 7 .624 Keirao Wangkhem 11 1.025 Keithelmanbi 11 1.026 Khabi 10 .927 Khoijumtabi 12 1.128 Khordak 14 1.229 Khordak (East) Laphupat Tera 5 .430 Khurkhul Makha and Awang Leikai 13 1.231 Kiyamgei Muslim Awang Leikai 8 .732 Koijam Khunou 10 .933 Koirengei Kabui 5 .434 Konthoujam 15 1.335 Kwakta Khuman Santhong 17 1.536 Laipham Khunou 6 .537 Laiphrakpam 9 .838 Lamding Laishram leikai 17 1.5



39 Lamlongei 6 .540 Laphupat Tera 1 .141 Leirongthen 15 1.342 Leishangthem 10 .943 Lourakpam Leikai 16 1.444 Maibam Leikai 15 1.345 Malom Tulihal 21 1.9

Table No.4-B : Name of Sample Villages under Panchayati Raj Institution

46 Moijing 16 1.447 Nachou 13 1.248 Naharup 18 1.649 Ngaikhong Khullen 6 .550 Ngaikhong Siphai 8 .751 Ngangkha Lawai 13 1.252 Nongmaikhong 7 .653 Nungbrang Makha 10 .954 Oinam Sawombung 8 .755 Pangei Nepali 16 1.456 Patsoi 11 1.057 Phayeng 15 1.358 Phougakchao Ikhai 23 2.159 Phubala 17 1.560 Pukhao Ahallup 13 1.261 Pukhao Laipham 15 1.362 Sora Awang 7 .663 Sora Makha 7 .664 Sora Mayai 8 .765 Sunusiphai 14 1.266 Tekcham 12 1.167 Tentha 13 1.2



68 Thamna Pokpi 15 1.369 Thangalawai 29 2.670 Thingel Leikai 12 1.171 Thinungei 19 1.772 Thiyam 13 1.273 Thoudam 11 1.074 Tokpaching 14 1.275 Torongthel 11 1.076 Toubul 21 1.977 Uchiwa 15 1.378 Utlou 13 1.279 Uyal 9 .880 Waikhong 22 2.081 Waithou 9 .882 Waithou Sangaomshang 11 1.083 Waiton 14 1.284 Wangbal 20 1.885 Wangjing Sorokhaibam Leikai 8 .786 Wangjing wangkhei 4 .487 Wangoo 31 2.888 Yumnam Khunou 16 1.4

Total 1121 100.0

Table No.5: Age Group of Respondents for PRI

Sl.No Age Group Sample Size Percent1 1.00 Up to 30 Years 228 20.3%2 2.00 31 to 40 332 29.6%3 3.00 41 to 50 412 36.8%4 4.00 51 to 60 134 12.0%5 5.00 61 to 70 14 1.2%6 6.00 71 to 80 1 .1%

Total 1121 100.0



Table No.6: Sample based on Educational Qualification of the Respondents for PRI

Sl.No Educational Level Sample Size Percent1 No schooling 139 12.42 Primary 178 15.93 Upper Primary 140 12.54 High School 198 17.75 PU 129 11.56 Graduate 302 26.97 Post graduate 29 2.68 Others 6 .5

Total 1121 100.0

Table No.7: Sample based on Community Composition of the Respondents for PRI

SL.No Community Sample Size Percent1 SC 201 17.92 ST 38 3.43 OBC 155 13.84 Meitei Pangal (Muslim) 100 8.95 General 598 53.36 Others 29 2.6

Total 1121 100.0



Table No.8: Sample based on Religious Composition of the Respondents for PRI

Sl.No Religious Group Sample Size Percent1 Hindu 878 78.32 Christian 39 3.53 Islam 82 7.34 Sanamahi Laiking 40 3.65 Traditional Religion 61 5.46 Others 20 1.8

Total 1120 99.9Total Sample 1121 100.0

Table No.9: Sample based on Occupation of the Respondents for PRI

Sl. No. Occupation Sample Percent1 Cultivator, agriculture and horticulture

and other allied activities 371 33.1

2 Business 243 21.73 Government Employee 62 5.54 Employment in Pvt Sector - School,

Institutions, firms, NGOs etc 388 34.6

5 Pensioner 2 .26 Unemployed 54 4.8

Invalid 1 .1Total 1121 100.0



Table No.10: Sample based on Income of the Respondents for PRI

Sl.No Income Sample Size Percent1 1.00 Re. 1 - 5000 698 62.32 Rs. 5001 - 10, 000 258 23.03 Rs. 10,001 - 15,000 74 6.64 Rs. 15,001 - 20,000 21 1.95 Rs. 20,001 - 30,000 29 2.66 Rs. 30,001 - 50,000 27 2.47 Rs. 50,001 and Above 9 .88 Invalid 4 .1

Total 1120 100

Table No.11: Male./Female Sampling Composition for PRI

Sex Sample Size PercentMale 902 80.5

Female 218 19.4Invalid 1 .1Total 1121 100.0

Emergence of Modern Panchayat System in Manipur: Panchayati Raj System as an organized institution of local self-government in Manipur has been in existence since time immemorial. It existed in the form of Khunja Mipham, a body of village elders, to deliver justice in the village.

In continuation of an age-old system, a modern Panchayat system of elected representatives in Manipur was introduced in the year 1960 under the provisions of the United Provinces (Uttar Pradesh) Panchayati Raj Act 1947, which was extended to the state. Under this Act, a two tier system of Panchayats was established in Manipur Valley - Gram Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat. It excluded from its purview the hill areas, cantonment areas, municipal areas and notified areas. Gram Panchayat was directly elected by the Gram Sabha whereas Nyaya Panchayat was indirectly elected by the Gram Panchayat. This Act provided for the establishment of local self-government in the rural areas. The Act for the first time divided the functions of the Gram Panchayat into eight spheres in which were included all aspects of social life, such as, sanitation and health, public works,



education and culture, self-defence, village defence, rural administration, welfare of the people, agriculture and preservation of forests. Along with this functional decentralization, the Act also democratized the machinery of the Gram Panchayat for carrying out the development works and put financial resources at its dispose.

The Gram Panchayat consists of elected members including the Pradhan and the Up-Pradhan. The Up-Pradhan was elected by the members of the Gram Panchayat from among themselves. Nyaya Panchayat was the judiciary wing of the Gram Panchayat. It could solve the problem of dispute of at least three circles of Gram Panchayats. The term of the Gram Panchayat was five years from the date of its first meeting. Normally one Panchayat Secretary was posted to each Gram Panchayat. The Panchayat Secretary was appointed by the State Government. The Panchayat Secretaries assisted the Pradhans and the members in implementation of development programmes and performing of duties and functions of the Gram Panchayat as assigned under the Panchayat Act and Rules. The necessary technical guidance and extension services required for implementation of development programmes in the Gram Panchayat areas were provided by the Block Development Officers and their subordinate staffs. The Block Development Officers were the administrative heads of their blocks and also secretaries to their Panchayat Samitis.

Under this Act, 227 Gram panchayats and 43 Nyaya panchayats started functioning in the state with effect from 1st. September, 1964. The second general election for the panchayats was held in the state in 1971.

After the attainment of Manipur Statehood in 1972, the state government enacted the Manipur Panchayat Raj Act, 1975, which provide for a three tier system of Panchayats in the State comprising of Gram Panchayats at the Gram Sabha level, Panchayat smitis at the block level and Zilla Parishads at the district level, besides Nyaya Panhayats for Judicial purposed. The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1947 being a borrowed Act was substituted by the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975. Under the act of 1975 and the Manipur Delimitation of Gram Sabha Rules, 1977, the state government in 1978 established 107 Gram Sabha, 37 Nyaya Panchayats and 6 Panchayat Samitis. Under the new law, general elections were held in 1978, 1985 and 1991. 166 gram p a n c h a y a t s and 9 panchayat samitis (apart from 43 nyaya panchayats) were set up in September, 1991 and their term came to an end in September, 1996.



For the first time in Manipur during the year 1978-79, 6 Block Panchayat Samitis were established in 6 Development Blocks in Manipur Central District. These are given below:

1. Thoubal Block Panchayat Samiti

2. Imphal East Block Panchayat Samiti

3. Imphal West – I Block Panchayat Samiti

4. Imphal West – II Block Panchayat Samiti

5. Bishnupur Block Panchayat Samiti

6. Jiribam Block Panchayat Samiti

With the establishment of these Samitis, the era of Block Development Committee (BDC) was closed and a new Chapter was ushered in the sphere of rural self-government. Accordingly 9 Block Panchayat Samitis were established in the valley areas of Manipur during the year 1985-86. District wise Panchayat Samitis are placed below:

Table No.12: District Wise Panchayat Samitis

Sl.No. Districts Name of Panchayat Samiti

1 Imphal East1.Imphal East- I Block Panchayat Samitiii. Imphal East – II Blockiii. Jiribam Block Panchayat Samiti

2 Imphal West1. Imhal West – I Blockii. Imphal West – II Block

3 Thoubali. Thoubal Block Panchayat Samitiii. Kakching Block Panchayat Samiti

4 Bishnupur1. Bishnupur Block Panchayat Samitiii. Moirang Block Panchayat Samiti

The Panchayat Samiti was indirectly elected by the Gram Panchayats which were in charge of the administrative developmental activities of the Block. The Panchayat Samiti consisted of (a) all the pradhans of all the Gram Sabhas in the block (b) all members of the Legislative Assembly and Members of Parliament whose respective constituencies wholly or partly fall within the block. The term of a Panchayat Samitis is five years. Every



Panchayat Samiti had Pramukh and Up-Pramukh elected from amongs the members. The Pramukh is the head of the political elements of the block. He is the chairman of the Samiti. He can take the decisions of the samiti. Panchayat Samitis and Nyaya Panchayats were abolished under the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act 1994. It was because the total population of Manipur was below 20 lakhs according to 1991 Census.

Although the Act of 1975 had provided for a three-tier system i.e. the Gram Panchayat at the village level, the Panchayati Samiti at the Block level and the Zilla Parishad at the district level, only a two-tier system was actually functioning. The Zilla Parishad at the district level had not been established. Under the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975, the size of the Gram Sabha was larger and the number of members was between 3,000and 6,000. The division into wards gave better representation to weaker sections and minority groups. The Act, being the first to be passed by the Manipur Legislative Assembly, consistedof several relevant laws relating to the working of the Panchayati Raj institutions. A unique feature of the Act was that one seat was reserved for women in every Gram Panchayat andseats were reserved for the SC and ST populations also.

At the Block level, Panchayat Samitis were formed. The pradhans of the Gram Sabha, two women members, one representative each from co-operative societies, SC/ST members, and those MLAs and MPs whose constituencies wholly or partly fell within the Block were the members of the Panchayati Samitis. Nyaya Panchayats as courts of justice at the village level were established under the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975. The cases tried in these courts included civil cases, where the value did not exceed Rs 500/-, and criminal cases where the value did not exceed Rs 250/-. The government in consultation with the district judge appointed two Panch as Sarpanch and Upsarpanch from among the elected Panch.

Section 34 of this law entrusted the gram panchayats with a very large list of functions in the spheres of sanitation and health, public works, education, sports and culture, village defence, welfare, agriculture / forest / animal husbandry, village industries, etc. Section 50 laid down an elaborate list of taxes and fees that could be levied by the gram panchayats. A somewhat similar list of functions was prescribed for the panchayat samitis in section 70 of the Act. Section 83 reflected surprisingly modern thinking on the subject and provided for transfers from the state government of shares in land revenue, other taxes and fees, surcharge on duty on transfer of immovable property and motor vehicles tax to the panchayat samities apart



from revenue from own l e v i e s as p resc r ibed under Section 91. The zilla parishads were given a supervisory role vis-a vis the 2 tiers of panchayati raj institutions within the district and were expected to advise the state government on all developmental matters within the district. The apex bodies could also raise their own taxes and fees but were to depend mainly on transfers from the state government. However, Zilla parishads were never set up in the state under this Act.

Further, in practice, the gram panchayats set up in the state did not perform any of the functions entrusted to t h e m under the law and were merely associated in the matter of selection of beneficiaries for various state and central government schemes like Intergrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP). The panchayat samitis fared somewhat better as these bodies supervised the utilisation of the meagre block funds for some rural development schemes. There were no efforts, whatsoever, in raising some funds internally, by exercising the enormous powers given under the law. At the same time, the concerned government departments continued to perform most of the functions expected to be taken care of by the panchayati raj institutions in the state.

In order to bring conformity with the Constitution (73rdAmendment) Act, 1992, the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was passed and it came into force on 23 April, 1994. The Act provides for a two-tier system comprising Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads; Gram Panchayat (GP) at the village level and Zilla Parishad (ZP) at the district level. The Act extends to the whole of the State of Manipur excluding any area to which the Manipur (Hill areas) District Council Act, 1971 or the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hills Areas) Act, 1956 extends including Cantonments and Municipalities areas. There is no provision for panchayat samitis or nyaya panchayats in the Act of 1994 as the state’s population at the time of enacting the Act was below 20 Lakhs.

The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, replaced the Act of 1975 in the districts of Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubal and Bishnupur. The main objective of the Act was to ensure the participation of the people in the effective implementation of rural development programmes. The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, provides for the establishment of the Gram Panchayat at the village level and the Zilla Parishad at the district level. The Panchayati Raj Act aimed at democratic decentralization of power and provided universal adult franchise for election of Panchayat members. It also provides for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population and women. In addition, the offices of the Pradhans, Up-



Pradhans of the Gram Panchayats and Adhyakshas and Up-Adhyakshas of the Zilla Parishads are reserved for SCs, STs and women. Thefunctions granted to Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads cover various subjects listed in the XIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. There is a provision for the constitution of DistrictPlanning Committees to co-ordinate the functioning of Gram Panchayats, Nagar Panchayats and Municipal Councils in the districts. Provision for the constitution of a State FinanceCommission and a State Election Commission is also present in the Act, 1994, for the supervision, direction and control of elections to the Panchayat bodies. In the event of abuseof power, the Zilla Parishad can be dissolved by the state government and a Gram Panchayat by the Zilla Parishad.

Sections 35 and 61 of the new law heaped an enormous amount of responsibilities on the gram panchayats and the zilla parishads. This was backed up by powers to raise resources as in sections 40 and 70 respectively.

The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, was first amended in 1996. Changes were brought about in a few provisions, such as in the formation of Gram Sabhas. In addition, in villages having a population of not less than 3,000 and not more than 6,000, a Pradhan could be removed only by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in the Gram Sabha. The amendment also related to specification of the powers and functions of the Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads in respect of the items enumerated in the XI Schedule by the government.

The state legislature, in 1996, passed a bill amending substantially two of the most important sections of the 1994 law, sections 35 and 61, relating to functions of the two layers of panchayati raj institutions proposed for the state. As per the amended version of the sections, the panchayati raj institutions will perform such functions as are notified by the state government from time to time. Interim arrangements were also made by way of administrative committees for the slight delay in holding the panchayat elections which were otherwise to have been completed by September, 1996. Since 1996, from time to time, minor amendments are being made to the Act of 1994.

In the absence of any internal resources, the state government has been meeting the entire establishment expenditure on account of the panchayati raj institutions in the state, largely out of plan funds. Section 40 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 27 lays down that all proposals for imposition of taxes/fees by the gram panchayats have to be approved by the Zilla Parishads. This is the first time that Zilla Parishads are being set up in this state.



Panchayats were functioning in the valley districts of Manipur since 1978 under the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975, and the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, with members being elected from time to time. However, the Panchayats were unable to fulfill the expectations of the local people. The problems are mostly related to inadequate funds. Even the schemes funded by the Central Government fail to take off as the funds do not reach in time.

Functioning of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in Manipur: The present Panchayat system in Manipur was introduced in 1960 under the provisions of the United Provinces (Uttar Pradesh) Panchayati Raj Act, 1947, which was extended to this state. It excluded from its purview the hill areas, cantonment areas, municipal areas and notifiedareas. Under this act, a two-tier system of Panchayats was established in the Manipur valleyand the Jiribam areas. In January 1964, the first elections were held. The second elections tothe Gram Panchayats under the Act were held in 1970. After the attainment of statehood in1972, the state government enacted the Manipur Panchayat Raj Act, 1975, which provided fora three-tier system of Panchayats in the state comprising of Gram Panchayats at the GramSabha level, Panchayat Samitis at the block level and Zilla Parishads at the district level,besides Nyaya Panchayats for judicial purposes. Under the act of 1975 and the ManipurDelimitation of Gram Sabha Rules, 1977, the state government established 107 GramSabhas, 37 Nyaya Panchayats and 6 Panchayat Samitis(Singh 2000).

The 73rd Constitutional Amendments Act, 1992 marked a new era in the federal democratic set up of the country as it conferred constitutional status to the Panchayats and recognized them as the third tier of Government. The Constitutional Amendment provides for devolution of powers and responsibilities to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) with respect to preparation of plans and programmes for economic development and social justice and implementation of the 29 subjects listed in XIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional Amendment established a system of uniform structure, holding of regular election, and regular flow of funds through Finance Commissions etc.

Pursuant to the passing of 73rd Amendment Act to the Constitution of India, Manipur passed the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 26 of 1994) which has come into force on 23.4.1994. 1994 was a watershed year in Manipur Panchayat legislations. The Act provides for a two- tier system i.e. Gram Panchayat (GP) at the village level and Zilla Parishad



atDistrict level; and rules were framed to enable the PRIs to function as per the Constitutional mandate.The Act extends to the whole of the State of Manipur excepting any area towhich the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 or the Manipur (Village Authorities inHill Areas) Act, 1956 extends including Cantonment and Municipalities Areas. Presently, onlyfour Districts of Manipur viz. Imphal East, Imphal West, Bishnupur and Thoubal are coveredunder the Panchayati Raj Act. The act of 1994 was substantially amended in 1996. In this theGram Sabhas were constituted.

The two-tier Panchayati Raj system envisaged in the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 came into force with effect from 24 June 1994. The first general election to the Zilla Parishads (ZPs) and Gram Panchayats (GPs) was held in 1997. Since then, general elections for the Panchayats have been held every five years. The last election (4th) was held in September 2012.

There are 165 Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of which 4 are Zilla Parishads and 161 are Gram Panchayats.

Table No. 13. The organizational set-up of Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State.

Source: Annual Technical Inspection Report for the year ended 31 March 2014



The Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj has been functioning as a nodal agency for proper functioning and implementation of schemes of Panchayati Raj Institutions and Block Development Offices. The Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj has been endeavoring to make the Rural Local Bodies as vibrant institutions and to accelerate the pace of development in rural areas involving people’s participation.

Followings are the Officers and Staff of the Directorate Head Office (Panchayat Wing), Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj:

Table No. 14: Staff Composition of Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj

Sl. No. Name of Post No. of post1 Asst. Director (Panchayat) 12 Head Clerk 13 Inspector 24 Auditor 45 Translator 16 Accountant 17 U.D.C 38 Stenographer 19 L.D.C 710 Driver 111 Grade – IV (Peon) 13

Source: Govt. of Manipur (GoM), Annual Administrative Report 2013-14.

The principal authorities of the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State are Principal Secretary of the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Zilla Parishads, Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Secretary (PS). The Principal Secretary of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj administers the overall monitoring and implementation of schemes relating to Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State. The Zilla Parishad (ZP) is an elected body and is responsible for the preparation of Plan for economic development and social justice of the District. The Chie Executive Officer (CEO) is appointed by the State Government and carries out the policies and directives of the Zilla Parishad. The Gram Panchayat (GP) which is an elected body is responsible for preparation of



Annual Plan and Annual Budget. The Panchayat Secretary is appointed by the State Government and is mainly responsible for keeping of records and maintenance of Accounts.

The main functions and responsibilities of the Panchayat Authorities in the State are shown in the following table:

Table No. 15: Functions and Responsibilities of the Panchayat Authorities

Sl. No. Authority Responsibilities

1 Principal Secretary (RD&PR)

Administers the overall monitoring andimplementation of schemes relating to PRIs

2 Zilla Parishad (elected body)Preparation of Plan for economic development andsocial justice of the District

3 Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

The CEO is appointed by the State Government andcarries out the policies and directives of the ZP

4 Gram Panchayat (elected body) Preparation of Annual Plan and Annual Budget

5 Panchayat Secretary (PS)

The PS is appointed by the State Government forkeeping of records and maintenance of Accounts

Source: Annual Technical Inspection Report for the year ended 31 March 2014

Composition of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs):The Panchayati Raj Institutions in Manipur are Zilla Parishads and Gram Panchayats. The Zilla Parishads have been established in valley districts of Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal and Bishnupur. Under normal condition, both Zilla Parishad and Gram Panchayats continue for a term of five years from the date of first meeting.

There are 165 Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of which 4 are Zilla Parishads and 161 are Gram Panchayats. There are 161 Pradhans and 60 Members of the Zilla Parishads. Since 2012, the members of Zilla Parishads



were reduced to 60 from 61.There are 56 (Fifty Six) Gram Panchayats in Imphal East District under 3 Community Develoment Blocks; 39 Gram Panchayats in Imphal West District under 2 Community Development Blocks; 42 Gram Panchayats in Thoubal District under 2 Community Development Blocks; and 24 Gram Panchayats in Bishnupur District under 2 Community Development Blocks.

Table: 16 Distribution of Gram Panchayat in 9 Community Development Blocks (CDB) of 4 Districts

Sl. No.

Name of Community Development Block (CDB) District No. of Gram

Panchayat1 Imphal East – I C.D. Block Imphal East 252 Imphal East – II C.D. Block Imphal East 253 Jiribam C.D. Block Imphal East 64 Imphal West – I C.D. Block Imphal West 245 Imphal West – II C.D. Block Imphal West 156 Thoubal C.D. Block Thoubal 277 Kakching C.D. Block Thoubal 158 Bishnupur C.D. Block Bishnupur 129 Moirang C.D. Block Bishnupur 12

Grand Total 161

Zilla Parishad (ZP): Every ZP is a corporate body which consists of the members directly elected from the territorial constituencies in the district. The Adhyaksha elected by the majority of the elected members presides over and conducts meeting of the ZP. The Adhyaksha is to exercise such other powers, perform such other functions and discharge such other duties as notified by the State Government from time to time.



The organization structure governing at ZP level is depicted in figure below:

Chart No.1: Organization Structure of Zilla Parishad

Reservation for elected members:

(a) SC/ST Reservation: In all Panchayats, seats are reserved forScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of seats so reserved are in thesame proportion as the population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in thatPanchayat area to the total population of the area. The reserved seats are allotted by a system of rotation to different constituencies in the Gram Panchayats. Not less than 1/3rdof the total seats reserved are for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes each in theirindividual category.

(b) Women Reservation: Table No. 17

Category Total No. of Seats Seats reserved for WomenZP Members 60 22ZP Chairperson 4 2

Staffing Pattern of PRIs: The Government may, by order, specify the staffing pattern, the scales of pay and mode of recruitment of the staff of Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads. As per provision under Section 75 of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 the State Government shall appoint Chief Accounts Officers, Chief Planning Officer and such number of officers of Groups A, B and C Staffs for each Zilla Parishad on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. However, no appointment against the stated posts was made as of March 2014.



a) Zilla Parishad: Each Zilla Parishad (ZP) is manned with staff deputed from different departments as a part of devolution of functionaries. However, there was no uniformity in the staffing pattern for Zilla Parishads (ZPs). The position of staff in the four Zilla Parishads (ZPs) as of March 2014 is detailed as below:

Table No. 18 : Zilla Parishads (ZPs) wise staff position

Sl. No. Name of Zilla Parishad Persons-in-Position1 Imphal East 222 Imphal West 273 Thoubal 054 Bishnupur 15

Total 69Source: Departmental Records; Annual Technical Inspection Report for the year ended 31 March 2014

As regards the sanctioned strength, the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur (Director RD&PR), expressed (April 2015) their inability to furnish the information/data.

It is evident from the above table that persons in position in the four Zilla Parishads (ZPs) varied between 5 to 27. Remedial steps need to be taken by the concerned Department to make an assessment of the number of officers and staff of different categories required for proper functioning of each Zilla Parishad (ZP).

The following table briefs about the strength and roles & responsibilities of key members and staffs of the Zilla Parishad. There are also other elected members who are part of the standing committees.



Table No. 19

Members & Staffs Number Roles & Responsibilities

Chairman (Adhyaksha) 1

*Perform all the duties imposed and exercise all the powers conferred on the Adhyaksha under the PRI Act and rules made there under

*Convene,preside over, and conduct meetings of the Zilla Parishad

*Exercise Administrative supervision and control over the Chief Executive Officer and through him. all officers and, other employees

• Exercise overall supervision over the financial and executive administration of the Zilla Parishad.

*Have power to accord sanction up to grant in aid for the purpose of providing immediate relief to those who are affected by natural calamities in the district.

Up-Adhyaksha 1

*In the absence of the Adhyaksha, preside over the meetings of the Zilla Parishad o Exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Adhyaksha

*Pending the election of the Adhyaksha or during the absence of the Adhyaksha for the district, or by reason of leave for a period exceeding thirty days, exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Adhyaksha.



Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 1

*Carry out the policies and directions of the Zilla Parishadand take necessary measures for the speedy execution of all works and developmental schemes of Zilla Parishad

*Discharge the duties imposedupon him, by or under this Actor the rules and regulations made there under

*Control the officers and servants of the Zilla Parishad subject to the general superintendence and control of the Zilla Adhyaksha and under such rules as may be prescribed

*Have custody of all papers and documents relating to Zilla Parishad

*Draw and disburse money out of the Zilla Parishad Funds and exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed.

Extension Officer (Panchayat) 1 Assist CEO in executing the job in

hand in timely and efficient mannerUDC 1 Process regular office worksLDC 1 Process regular office works

Accountant 1Handles cash transactions and

maintains recordsSource: Roles and Responsibilities of Zilla Parishad Members and personnel

(b)Gram Panchayat (GP) : Each GP has a body comprising Pradhan and its members. The Pradhan and its members are elected by direct election by the members of the Gram Sabha from amongst themselves. The Pradhan shall preside over the meeting of the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat as well and is responsible for governance of the body.

As per Section 45 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, there shall be a Secretary for every Gram Panchayat (GP) who shall be appointed in such manner as may be prescribed. However, as of March 2014, against



a sanctioned strength of 161 Panchayat Secretaries, there were only 88 Secretaries in the State. The shortfall of 73 Secretaries was attributed to vacancies arising on account of retirement, death and promotion to higher post of the incumbents.

Taking into account the various functions that have been delegated to the Gram Panchayats (GPs), adequate functionaries are essential to carry out the smooth and effective functioning of the local bodies. However, it is evident that the provision of staff was insufficient in Gram Panchayats (GPs) for maintenance of accounts and carrying out of their functions in the midst of increasing financial and developmental activities.

Staff position, strength and roles &responsibilities for each of the 161 Gram Panchayats in Manipur is mentioned in the table below:

Table No.20

Members & Staffs Number Roles & Responsibilities

Chairman(Pradhan) 1

Any information, return statement or reportfrom the GP office and to enter on and inspectany immovable property of the GP or any workin progress concerning the committee

Up-Pradhan 1 Executes the power of Pradhan in the absence

of PradhanPresides over the meetings of GramPanchyats

PanchayatSecretary 1 Monitors day to day activities at the panchayatlevel

Source: Roles and Responsibilities of GP members and personnel

(c)Standing Committee : Under Sections 38 and 65 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Gram Panchayats and the Zilla Parishads are required to constitute the following Standing Committees to perform the functions assigned to them:



Table No. 21: Details of Standing Committees

Level of PRIs

Chief Political Executive

Standing Committees Political Executives

GP Pradhan (a) Production Committee

(b) Social Justice Committee

(c) Amenities committees

Pradhan is the Chairman

of the three Committees

ZP Adhyaksha (a) General Standing Committee

(b) Finance, Audit and Planning

Committee

Adhyaksha is the

Chairman of each

Committee

(c) Social Justice Committee

Up-Adhyaksha is the

Chairman(d) Education & Health Committee

(e) Agriculture & Industries

Committee

(f) Works Committee

Chairman is elected from

the members of these

Committees

Source: The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

In case of Gram Panchayat, each Committee shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members including the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan as the case may be. In Zilla Parishad, each Standing Committee shall consist of such number of members not exceeding five including the Chairman elected by the members of Zilla Parishad from amongst the Standing Committees.

However, none of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, except Imphal West Zilla Parishad, have constituted the above Committees as of March 2014. In the absence of such Committees, activities/functions like Education, Agriculture and Amenities etc. cannot be initiated and followed up in a systematic way.



Consequently these activities are not getting focused as envisaged.

The Panchayati Raj Institutions – wise roles and responsibilities of the Standing Committees are shown in the following tables:

Table No. 22. The PRIs-wise roles and responsibilities of Standing Committees

Gram Panchayat Zilla ParishadProduction Committee for erforming functions relating to agricultural products, animal husbandry and rural industries and poverty alleviation programmes

General Standing Committee shall perform functions relating to the establishment matters and functions relating to communication, building, rural housing, village extension, relief against the natural calamities and allied matters and other matters

Social Justice Committee for

performing functions relating to:-

i) promotion of education, economic, social, cultural and other interest of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes;

ii) protection of such castes and classes from social injustice and any form of exploitation; and Welfare of women and children

Finance Audit and Planning Committee shall perform the functions relating to:-

i) the finances of the ZP, framing of budgets, scrutinizing proposals for increasing revenue, examination of receipts and expenditure statements, consideration of all proposals affecting the finances of the ZP and general supervision of the revenue and expenditure of the ZP; and

ii) the plan priorities, allocation of outlays to developments, horizontal and vertical linkages, implementation of guidelines issued by the Government, regular review of planning programmes, evaluation of important programmes and small savings schemes.



Amenities Committee to perform

functions in respect of education,

public health, public works and other

functions of the Gram Panchayat

Social Justice Committee shall perform functions relating to:-

i) promotion of education, economic, social,

cultural and other interests of the Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward

Classes;

ii) protecting them from social injustice and all

other forms of exploitation;

iii) amelioration of the Scheduled Castes, the

Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes; and

iv) Securing social justice to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, women and other weaker sections of the societyEducation and Health Committee shall:-

i) be in-charge of all educational activities of the ZP;

ii) undertake the planning of education in the district within the framework of the national policy and the central and the state plans;

iii) survey and evaluate the educational activities of the ZP;

iv) perform such other duties pertaining to education, adult literacy and cultural activities as the ZP may assign to it; and

v) health services, hospitals, water supply, family welfare and other related matters



Agriculture and Industry Committee shall perform functions relating to:-

i) Agriculture production, animal husbandry, cooperation, contour bunding and reclamation;

ii) village and cottage industries; and

iii) promotion of industrial development of the district.

Source: Annual Technical Inspection Report for the year ended 31 March 2014/The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

(d)District Planning Committee : In terms of Article 243 ZD of the Constitution of India and Section 96 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the State Government is required to constitute a District Planning Committee (DPC) in each district to consolidate the plans prepared by the Panchayats and Municipalities in the District and prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole. The DPC was constituted in Thoubal and Bishnupur Districts in August 1997, while in Imphal East and Imphal West District, it was constituted in May 2003. As per the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the DPC shall consist of the following members:

a. Adhyaksha of the Zilla Parishad (Chairperson);

b. Members of the House of the People representing the district;

c. Members of Legislative Assembly who are elected in the district;

d. Such number of Councilors as may be specified by the government from the member of councilors of Nagar Panchayat and Municipal Councils in the district; and

e. Chief Executive Officer; Though DPCs were constituted in four valley districts they were not made functional as of March 2014. None of the DPCs had engaged technical experts and secretarial support staff in different fields for preparation of draft district development plan, defeating the key purpose of constitution of the DPCs. Neither the Gram Panchayats nor the Zilla Parishads prepared perspective plans to be submitted to DPC. Thus, in the absence of perspective plan of districts as a whole, funds were allocated by the Government to Local Bodies in routine manners.



Irregularities in Gram Sabha Proceedings: Section 9 of the MPR Act,1994 states that the Gram Panchayat shall prepare the agenda for discussion of the Gram Sabha and such matters shall relate to the followings items: -

F The annual statement of accounts of the Gram Panchayat, the report of administration of the preceding financial year and the last audit note and replies if any, made thereto.

F The budget of the Gram Panchayat for the next financial year.

F The report in respect of development programmes of the Gram Panchayat relating to the preceding year and development programmes proposed to be undertaken during the next year.

However, examination of 21 GPs revealed that the Gram Sabha meetings were held specifically for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). The vital points as stated above were not included in the agenda for discussion.

Fund flow to Panchayati Raj Institutions: The resource base of PRIs consists of Central Finance Commission (CFC) grants, State Finance Commission (SFC) grants, Central Government grants and State Government grants for maintenance and development purposes. Funding by the State Government was on the lines of accepted recommendations of the Second SFC that took into account factors like population, literacy, health, irrigation, medical facilities etc. At present, Panchayats in Manipur do not levy any tax on citizens. However, there are provisions in State Panchayati Raj Act for the same but Government orders have not been issued to Gram Panchayats to do thesame.

The release of funds to PRIs under State Finance Commission (SFC) is shown in table 40.



Table No:23: Release of Funds to PRIs under SFC Award (Rs. In crore)

Name of PRIs Amount during the following given yearsZilla Parishad 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13Imphal East 0.87 1.12 0.81 0.81 0.89Imphal West 0.59 0.76 0.55 0.55 0.61Thoubal 0.94 1.21 0.87 0.87 0.96Bishnupur 0.62 0.79 0.57 0.57 0.63Total 3.02 3.88 2.80 2.80 3.09

Table No. 24: Funds Release to Community Development Block

Community Development Block 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Imphal East-I 2.19 2.82 2.04 2.04 2.24Imphal East-II 2.23 2.87 2.08 2.08 2.28Jiribam 0.52 0.67 0.49 0.49 0.54Imphal West-I 2.32 3.00 2.17 2.17 2.29Imphal West-II 1.02 1.32 0.96 0.96 1.15Thoubal 3.55 4.58 3.31 3.31 3.64Kakching 1.76 2.27 1.64 1.64 1.81Bishnupur 1.78 2.30 1.66 1.66 1.83Moirang 1.71 2.20 1.59 1.59 1.75Total 17.08 22.03 15.94 15.94 17.53Grand Total 20.10 25.91 18.74 18.74 20.62

Source: Government of Manipur (2013), “Annual Technical Inspection Report on Panchayati

Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies for the year ended 31 March 2013”.

The fund-wise source and its custody for each tier and the fund flow arrangements in flagship schemes are given in tables 41 and 42 below respectively. The authorities for reporting use of funds in respect of ZPs and GPs are Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Panchayat Secretary respectively.



Table No. 25: Fund flow mechanism in PRIs

ZPs GPs

Nature of Fund Source of fund

Custody of fund

Source offund

Custody of fund

Own receipts

Assessee and users Bank

Assessee andusers

Bank

Revenue grantsState Government Bank State

Government BankState FinanceCommissionState Plan SchemeCentral FinanceCommission/CentrallySponsored Scheme

Government of India Bank Government

of India Bank

Source: Departmental Records

Table No. 26: Fund flow arrangements in flagship schemes

Sl.No. Scheme Fund flow

1 Mahatma Gandhi

National Rural

Employment

Guarantee Scheme

(MGNREGS)

Central share is released direct to the District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs). State share provided in the Budget is released to DRDA. DRDAs disburse the fund (Central and State share together) to ZP and GPs under their jurisdiction.

Source: Schemes guidelines

Resources: Trends and Composition: The fund flow arrangements and trends of resources of PRIs for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 are shown in the table below:



Table No. 27: Time series data on resources of PRIs In Crore

Source of Revenue 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14Government of India grants 108.59 129.38 241.39 214.04 70.45

State grants for Centrally Sponsored Schemes

5.46 7.58 12.50 25.88 11.77

CFC grant 8.51 5.60 5.47 7.79 12.57SFC grant 25.91 18.74 18.74 20.62 20.62Salaries/Honorarium 0.72 0.72 3.42 2.70 2.91Own Revenue Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Total 149.19 162.02 281.52 271.03 118.32Source: Data consolidated from the data received from DRDAs, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (RD&PR) Department

As compared to 2009-10 the grants from Central Government substantially increased during 2010-1 1& 2011-12 due to release of more funds under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). However, grants from the Central Government decreased in 2012-13 as compared to 2011-12. Reasons for decrease was sought from the Department, the reply is still awaited (December 2014). The drastic decline of grants during 2013-14 was due to less release of funds under MGNREGS.

State Finance Commission Grants: Since the enactment of the 73rd Amendment Act to the Constitution of India, the State Government has constituted three State Finance Commissions (SFCs) to determine the principles on the basis of which adequate financial resources would be ensured for PRIs. The 1st Manipur State Finance Commission was constituted in 1996. The Second State Finance Commission (SFC) was appointed on 3/1/2003 to cover up the period 2001-2005. However, there was a long delay in the appointment and the commission came into existence only march, 2003. The report of the Second SFC was available in November, 2004 and the action taken report on the same was submitted in the State Assembly in December 2005. The recommendations of the Second SFC effective from 01/04/2001 were passed in the State Legislative Assembly during December 2005. The period of the Second SFC covered up to 31/03/2010. As per the accepted recommendations of Second SFC, the State Government is



required to transfer 10 per cent of the State’s own revenue including the State’s share of Central taxes to the local bodies including the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). Out of this 10 per cent, 34.38 per cent is to be transferred to PRIs.

The Third SFC was constituted in March 2013 and its report was due in June 2013. Awaiting recommendations of the Third SFC, the State Government agreed to continue adoption of the recommendation of the Second SFC until the recommendation of the Third SFC is accepted for implementation. Thus, funds pertaining to 2011-12 to 2013-14 were released on the basis of the recommendations of the Second SFC under the head ‘Assignment & Compensation’ as the report of the Third SFC is still awaited. The position of funds released and shortfall in release of funds during 2009-14 are as shown in the chart following Chart:

Chart No. 1.1: Source: Department Records and Finance Accounts

As it is evident from the chart above that both the committed/budgeted amount and the actual release of fund by the State Government to the PRIs during 2009-14 was lower than that of the recommendation of the Second SFC.



The shortfall in actual fund transferred ranged from 27 to 72 per cent which showed an increasing trend. The reason for short release of funds was not recorded. Such shortfall in fund transfers would impede the developmental works of the rural areas in the State.

Devolution of Powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions:

Status of transfer of Funds, Functions and Functionaries: As envisaged in Article 243 (G) of the Constitution of India and under Section 35 & 61 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Government of Manipur had issued Orders on 15/09/1998 for Devolution of Powers and Functions to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) relating to 22 Line Departments in conformity with 29 items listed in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. However, the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 02/09/2005 had approved devolution of powers to PRIs by only 16 Line Departments along with activity mapping possibly in view of the limited capacity of the other Six (6) Departments.

As a follow up of action and for effective devolution of funds, functions and functionaries (3Fs) to the PRIs, the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 02-09-2005 had approved the Activity Mapping in respect of the following 16 Line Departments viz., 1.Transport, 2.Health, 3.Vety.& A.H, 4.Fisheries, 5.Rural Development, 6.Education, 7.Industries, 8.Agriculture, 9.Horticulture, 10. Tribal Development, Welfare of Weaker Sections (SC & ST), 11. Co-Operation, 12.Minor Irrigation, 13.Arts & Culture, 14.Social Welfare, 15.Science & Technology and 16.Family Welfare (shown in Table - 2). Thus the State Cabinet in its Meeting had approved devolution of powers to the PRIs by only 16 Line Departments along with activity mapping possibly in view of the limited capacity of the other Six (6) departments.

The Government of Manipur had issued orders for Devolutions of Powers and Functions to PRIs thereby making a clear cut demarcation of powers and functions to be carried out by the Zilla Parishads and Gram Panchayats.

Further, the Secretariat Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Manipur, had proposed the 16 Line Departments to take necessary actions for transferring the activities, schemes, functionaries and funds as approved by the State Cabinet within 23.9.2005 vide their letter No. 7/2005 – RD & PR dated 9-9-2005, with reminders being sent time to time to the concerned departments for follow up action. The Activity Mapping approved by the State Cabinet on 02/09/2005 for 16 Line Departments are shown below:



Tabl

e N

o: 2

8: L

ist o

f dep

artm

ent a

nd a

ctiv

ities

, sch

emes

app

rove

d fo

r de

volu

tion

of p

ower

to P

RIs

Sl.

No.

Dep

artm

ent

Act

iviti

es to

be

tran

sfer

red

to

ZPs

Act

iviti

es to

be

tran

sfer

red

to

GPs

Fina

ncia

l Im

pli-

catio

ns(R

s. in

lakh

s)

Func

tiona

ries

to

be tr

ansf

erre

dB

udge

tary

Re-

quir

emen

ts o

f fu

nds

12

34

56

71

Tran

spor

tM

aint

enan

ce o

f B

us S

tand

and

te

rmin

us a

long

N

atio

nal/S

tate

H

ighw

ays/

Dis

trict

road

sC

olle

ctio

n of

pa

rkin

g fe

es a

s pr

escr

ibed

by

the

Tran

spor

t De-

partm

ent u

nder

a

notifi

catio

n

Mai

nten

ance

of

Bus

Sta

nd a

nd

term

inus

alo

ng

IVR

sC

olle

ctio

n of

pa

rkin

g fe

es in

th

e ru

ral m

arke

ts

in th

e re

spec

tive

area

s of G

Ps

No

fund

is

requ

ired

as th

e sa

me

are

to b

e m

aint

aine

d ou

t of

the

ZPs/

GPs

re

sour

ces

No

pow

er fr

om

Tran

spor

t De-

partm

ent

Nil

2H

ealth

To m

anag

e al

l Pu

blic

Hea

lth

Inst

itutio

ns u

nder

th

e N

RH

M

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

act

iviti

es

prep

arat

ion

of v

illag

e ac

-tio

n pl

an u

nder

N

RH

M

Rs.

10.0

0 la

khs

for m

aint

enan

ce

of P

HSC

/Dis

-pe

nsar

ies a

nd R

s. 6.

00 la

khs f

or

staff

sala

ries

1 –

MH

W a

nd

1 –

FHW

Rs.

10.0

0 la

khs

Rs.

6.00

lakh

s for

Sa

lary

--

----

----

----

---

Rs.

16.0

0 la

khs



3Ve

ty. &

A.H

Mai

nten

ance

of

Vety

., D

ispe

n-sa

ries H

ealth

C

entre

sD

istri

butio

n of

Fo

dder

See

ds

Iden

tifica

tion

of e

nefic

iarie

s tra

inee

s for

the

Sche

mes

Pro

-gr

ames

thro

ugh

a m

eetin

g of

the

Gra

m S

abha

Iden

tifica

tion

of

bene

ficia

ries f

or

fodd

er c

ultiv

atio

n

Rs.

6.75

lakh

s fo

r eac

h Z.

P. fo

r Sc

hem

es

1 –

SDO

(Ext

n.),

1 –

AEO

and

1

– FA

for e

ach

ZP

Rs.

26.0

0 la

khs

for S

chem

eR

s. 20

.00

lakh

s fo

r Sal

ary

Rs 4

6.00

lakh

s

4Fi

sher

ies

Sele

ctio

n of

be

nefic

iarie

s un

der C

SS F

FDA

Pr

ogra

mm

es/

Sche

me

Dis

tribu

tion

of fe

ed/fi

sh-

ing

equi

pmen

t to

pro

gres

sive

fa

rmer

s

Iden

tifica

tion

of b

enefi

ciar

ies

toug

h G

ram

Sa

bha

Rs.

25.0

0 la

khs

for s

chem

esR

s. 6.

00la

khs f

or

1 –

Insp

ecto

r (F

ishe

ries)

1 –

FA fo

r eac

h ZP

Rs.

31.0

0 la

khs



5R

ural

Dev

el-

opm

ent

Plan

ning

and

im

plem

enta

tion

of w

orks

pro

-gr

amm

es/s

helf

of

proj

ects

Impl

emen

tatio

n,

supe

rvis

ion

and

mon

itorin

g of

va

rious

CSS

Pov

-er

ty A

llevi

atio

n Pr

ogra

mm

es.

Iden

tifica

tion

of

loca

tion

of w

orks

w

ith th

e ap

prov

-al

for t

he G

ram

Sa

bha

Iden

tifica

tion

of b

enefi

ciar

ies

thro

ugh

Gra

m

Sabh

a

Fund

s dire

ctly

tra

nsfe

rred

to

PRIs

Rs.

176.

16 la

khs

for s

taff

sala

ry

1 –

EO (P

)1

– U

DC

1

– A

ccou

ntan

t fo

r eac

h ZP

and

1

– Pa

ncha

yat

Secr

etar

y ea

ch

for 1

61G

ram

Pa

ncha

yats

Rs.

176.

16 la

khs

for s

taff

sala

ry

only

6Ed

ucat

ion

(Sch

ools

)O

rgn.

Of A

dult

Edn.

/Non

-For

mal

Ed

n. C

entre

sR

epai

r and

m

aint

enan

ce o

f Pr

imar

y Sc

hool

s bu

ildin

g

Sele

ctio

n of

A

dult

Edn.

/NFE

ce

ntre

sId

entifi

catio

n of

W

orks

thou

gh

Gra

m S

abha

&

form

atio

n of

be

nefic

iarie

s co

mm

ittee

Rs.

4.00

lakh

sR

s. 10

.00

lakh

sR

s. 5

.76

lakh

s fo

r Sta

ff Sa

lary

1 –

Ass

ista

nt In

-sp

ecto

r of S

choo

l fo

r eac

h ZP

Rs.

19.7

6 la

khs



7In

dust

ries

Ass

ocia

tion

in

sele

ctio

n of

ben

e-fic

iarie

s of K

VIs

an

d en

trepr

eneu

rs

in S

ervi

ce S

ec-

tors

Ass

ocia

tion

with

th

e Ta

sk F

orce

fo

r sel

ectio

n of

be

nefic

iarie

s un

der P

MRY

Rec

omm

enda

tion

of b

enefi

ciar

ies

thou

gh G

ram

Sa

bha

Rs.

3.36

lakh

s for

th

e sa

lary

of s

taff

for 4

ZPs

1 –

E.O

(Ind

) for

ea

ch Z

PR

s. 3.

36 la

khs

8A

gric

ultu

reD

istri

butio

n of

im

prov

ed a

g-ric

ultu

ral t

ools

&

impl

emen

ts

& o

ther

inpu

ts

to fa

rmer

s Es-

tabl

ishm

ent &

m

aint

enan

ce o

f ru

ral m

arke

ts

Sele

ctio

n of

ben

-efi

ciar

ies t

hrou

gh

Gra

m S

abha

Sele

ctio

n of

su

itabl

e m

arke

t-in

g si

tes t

hrou

gh

Gra

m S

abha

Rs.

2.00

lakh

s fo

r eac

h ZP

for

sche

me

Rs.

6.72

lakh

s fo

r sal

ary

of S

taff

trans

ferr

ed to

PR

Is

1 –

AEO

(Agr

i) fo

r eac

h ZP

1 –

FA/V

LW/

VEW

for e

ach

ZP

Rs.

14.7

2 la

khs



9H

ortic

ultu

reIm

plem

enta

tion

of

Expa

nsio

n pr

ogs.

Dem

onst

ratio

n pr

ogs.

Ass

ista

nce

to

smal

l mar

gina

l fa

rmer

s in

the

cons

tn. o

f sm

all

Engn

. Stru

ctur

e an

d la

nd le

vel-

ing

Con

stn.

of

wat

er h

arve

stin

g st

ruct

ure

Sele

ctio

n of

be

nefic

iarie

s/si

tes

thou

gh G

ram

Sa

bha

Rs.

2.00

lakh

s fo

r eac

h ZP

for

sche

mes

Rs.

9.60

lakh

s fo

r sal

ary

of st

aff

trans

ferr

es to

PR

Is

1 –

AA

O a

nd

2 –

FA fo

r eac

h ZP

Rs.

17.6

0 la

khs



10Tr

ibal

Dev

. W

elfa

re o

f W

eake

r Sec

-tio

n (S

C &

ST)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

Fam

ily o

rient

-ed

sche

mes

like

A

nim

al H

us-

band

ary,

Fis

her-

ies,

Indu

strie

s etc

Mai

nten

ance

of

villa

ge a

ppro

ach

road

s, co

mm

u-ni

ty h

all,

scho

ol

build

ings

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

rura

l she

lters

sc

hem

e fo

r SC

Sele

ctio

n of

ben

-efi

ciar

ies t

houg

h G

ram

Sab

ha

a)R

s. 10

.50

Lakh

sb)

Rs.

12.0

0 la

khs

c)R

s. 13

.00

lakh

sR

s. 35

.50

lakh

s fo

r 4 Z

Ps+

Rs.

7.20

lakh

s for

st

aff sa

lary

42.7

0 la

khs

1 –

FA &

1 –

E.O

for e

ach

ZP

Rs.

42.7

0 la

khs

11C

o-op

erat

ion

Rec

over

y of

cro

p lo

an a

nd m

ake

for e

xten

ding

cr

edit

to fa

rmer

s w

ith a

ssis

tanc

e of

M

SCB

To a

ssoc

iate

with

th

e D

eptt.

ZPa

/M

SCB

in th

e re

cove

ry o

f loa

n an

d id

entifi

catio

n of

farm

ers f

or

exte

ndin

g cr

op

loan

s

Rs.

4.80

lakh

s for

st

aff sa

lary

1 –

Sub-

Reg

istra

r C

S fo

r eac

h ZP

Rs.

4.80

lakh

s for

st

aff sa

lary



12M

inor

Irrig

a-tio

nM

aint

enan

ce o

f R

LI &

Sur

face

Fl

ow sc

hem

es

and

colle

ctio

n of

w

ater

cha

rges

Iden

tifica

tion

of

wor

ks si

te a

nd

colle

ctio

n of

w

ater

cha

rges

Rs.

4.00

lakh

s for

ZP R

s. 13

.64

lakh

s fo

r sta

ff sa

lary

Rs.

17.6

4 la

khs

1 –

SO1

– Pu

mp

Ope

ra-

tor &

1 –

R.M

Rs.

17.6

4 la

khs

13A

rts &

Cul

ture

Supe

rvis

ion

and

Mon

itorin

g of

C

ultu

ral P

rogs

.M

aint

enan

ce o

f ru

ral l

ibra

ries

unde

r Raj

a R

am

Moh

an R

oy a

nd

Raj

iv G

andh

i Fo

unda

tion

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

cul

tura

l pro

gs.

thro

ugh

cultu

ral

NG

Os

Sele

ctio

n of

C

entre

s

Rs.

2.00

lakh

s for

ZP R

s. 1.

40 la

khs f

or

4 ZP

sR

s. 4.

80 la

khs f

or

staff

sala

ryR

s. 8.

20 la

khs

1 –

Prog

ram

me

Offi

cer

Rs.

8.20

lakh

s

14So

cial

Wel

fare

Supe

rvis

ion

Im-

plem

enta

tion

&

mon

itorin

g of

the

prog

s.Pr

even

tion

of

drug

abu

seIm

plem

enta

tion

of B

SY (B

alik

a Sa

mrid

hi Y

ojan

a)

Iden

tifica

tion

of

the

bene

ficia

ries

Rs.

6.00

lakh

s for

B

SY sc

hem

eR

s. 6.

72 la

khs f

or

staff

sala

ryR

s. 12

.72

lakh

s

2 –

Gra

m S

evik

aR

s. 12

.72

lakh

s fo

r eac

h ZP



15Sc

ienc

e &

Tech

nolo

gyEs

tabl

ishm

ent o

f no

n-co

nven

tiona

l en

ergy

sour

ces

such

as b

io-g

as

plan

ts/s

olar

coo

k-in

g pl

ants

.In

trodu

ctio

n of

Sm

oke-

less

/C

hullh

aIm

prov

ed p

orta

-bl

e C

hulla

h

Sele

ctio

n of

ben

-efi

ciar

ies w

ith th

e ap

prov

al o

f Gra

m

Sabh

a

Rs.

20.0

0 la

khs

for e

ach

ZP fo

r sc

hem

esR

s. 2.

40 la

khs f

or

staff

sala

ry fo

r ea

ch Z

P

2 –

P.O

1 –

Jr. E

ngr.

2 –

LDC

s for

ea

ch Z

P

Rs.

89.6

0 la

khs

16Fa

mily

Wel

-fa

reIm

plem

enta

tion

of F

amily

Wel

-fa

re S

chem

e

Sele

ctio

n of

ben

-efi

ciar

ies t

houg

h G

ram

Sab

ha

Rs.

4.00

lakh

s for

4

ZPR

s. 5.

76 la

khs f

or

staff

sala

ryR

s. 9.

76 la

khs

1 –

AN

M &

1 –

Fem

ale

Hea

lth W

orke

r fo

r eac

h ZP

Rs.

9.76

lakh

s.

Sour

ce: D

epar

tmen

tal S

ourc

e: T

he st

atus

on

the

tran

sfer

of f

unds

and

func

tiona

ries

in re

spec

t of 1

6 D

epar

tmen

ts a

s on

01/0

7/20

14



Tabl

e 29

: The

follo

win

g D

epar

tmen

ts h

ave

tran

sfer

red

func

tions

, fun

ds, a

nd fu

nctio

nari

es to

PR

Is so

far

(as o

n 01

/07/

2014

).

SL.N

o.D

epar

tmen

tFu

nctio

nsFu

nds

Func

tiona

ries

1Fi

sher

ies

I. Im

plem

enta

tion

& A

ssis

tanc

e to

Pis

cicu

lture

, Sc

hem

e

II. D

istri

butio

n of

feed

, Fis

hery

equ

ipm

ents

to p

ro-

gres

sive

farm

ers:

i. Pr

ocur

emen

t of n

urse

ry n

et o

re sy

nthe

tic tw

in

ii.

Proc

urem

ent a

nd su

pply

of y

earli

ng S

ize

IMC

&

Exo

tic C

rap

seed

s to

fish

farm

ers a

t Gov

ern-

men

t sub

sidi

ze ra

te.

iii.

Proc

urem

ent &

supp

ly o

f Arti

ficia

l Fis

h se

ed

Rs.

7.00

lak

hs

(200

5 - 0

6)

Rs.

6.00

lakh

s

(200

6-07

)

Rs.

3.00

lakh

s

(200

7-08

)

Rs.

4.00

lakh

s

(200

8 - 0

9)

1 (o

ne) I

nspe

c-to

r,

1 (o

ne) F

.A to

ea

ch Z

illa

Pari-

shad



2R

ural

Dev

t. &

Panc

haya

ti R

aj

Zill

a Pa

rish

ad

i) Pl

anni

ng, f

orm

ulat

ion

of w

ork

prog

ram

me/

shel

f of

pro

ject

s,

ii)

Impl

emen

tatio

n, su

perv

isio

n an

d m

onito

ring

of

vario

us C

SS p

over

ty a

llevi

atio

n pr

ogra

mm

es/

wor

ks/s

chem

e un

der F

inan

ce C

omm

issi

on

Awar

ds

Gra

m P

anch

ayat

i) Id

entifi

catio

n of

loca

tion

of w

orks

with

ap

prov

al o

f Gra

m S

abha

ii)

Iden

tifica

tion

of b

enefi

ciar

ies w

ith th

e ap

prov

al o

f Gra

m S

abha

Rs.

2008

.40

lakh

s

(200

7-08

)

Rs.

2591

.68

lakh

s

(200

8-09

)

Rs.

3113

.66

lakh

s

(200

9-10

)

Rs.

1875

.00

lakh

s

(201

0-11

)

Rs.

1875

.00

lakh

s

(201

1-12

)

Rs.

2062

.00

lakh

s

(201

2-13

)

Rs.

2062

.00

lakh

s

(201

3 - 1

4)

1 Ex

tens

ion

Offi

cer,

1 U

DC

,

1 A

ccou

ntan

t to

each

ZP

&

1 Pa

ncha

yat

Secr

etar

y to

ea

ch 1

61 G

ram

Pa

ncha

yat



3H

ortic

ultu

reA

ssis

tanc

e to

Sm

all F

arm

ers f

or in

crea

sing

Agr

icul

-tu

re p

rodu

ctio

n, L

and

recl

amat

ion

and

Dev

elop

men

t th

roug

h PR

Is

Rs.

8.00

lakh

s

-(

2006

-07)

Rs.

24.0

0 la

khs

-(20

07-0

8)R

s. 24

.00

lakh

s

-(

2008

-09)

Rs.

24.0

0 la

khs

-(20

09-1

0)R

s. 24

.00

lakh

s

-(

2010

-11)

Rs.

24.0

0 la

khs

-(20

11-1

2)R

s. 24

.00

lakh

s

-(

2012

-13)

Rs.

24.0

0 la

khs

-(20

13-1

4)R

s. 24

.00

lakh

s

-(

2014

-15)

1 A

ssis

tant

Agr

i.O

ffice

r

1 A

sst.

Hor

t. In

spec

tor &

1 So

il Su

rvey

or

to e

ach

Zilla

Pa

risha

d



4Tr

ibal

Dev

el-

opm

ent

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

Sch

edul

e C

aste

Dev

elop

men

t Pr

ogra

mm

e R

s. 15

.30

lakh

s

– 2

006-

07R

s. 29

,69,

785

lakh

s - 2

007-

08

Rs.

38,6

0,00

0 la

khs –

2008

– 0

9

1 Ex

tens

ion

Offi

cer A

gri.,

1 Fi

eld

Ass

t. &

1 R

oad

Moh

orrir

to

eac

h ZP

5Sc

ienc

e &

Te

chno

logy

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

IREP

Sch

eme

Rs.

40.0

0 la

khs

- 2

006

– 07

Rs.

40.0

0 la

khs

– 2

007

– 08

Rs.

50.0

0 la

khs

– 2

008

– 09

Rs.

18.0

0 la

khs

– 2

009

– 10

Rs.

18.0

0 la

khs

– 20

10 –

11

Rs.

24.0

0 la

khs

– 2

012

– 13

Rs.

14.0

0 la

khs

– 20

13 –

14

No

staff

is tr

ans-

ferr

ed a

s yet



6Tr

ansp

ort

Mai

nten

ance

of b

us st

ands

and

term

inus

alo

ng N

H/

SH/D

R/IV

Rs a

nd c

olle

ctio

n of

par

king

fees

in th

eir

resp

ectiv

e ju

risdi

ctio

n

No

fund

requ

ired

to b

e tra

nsfe

rred

No

man

pow

er

requ

ired

from

Tr

ansp

ort D

e-pa

rtmen

t7

Soci

al W

el-

fare

Nom

inee

from

ZP

in se

lect

ion

of A

ngan

wad

i Cen

tres.

Invo

lvem

ent o

f GPs

in N

atio

nal F

amily

Ben

efit

Sche

me

Nom

inat

ion

Adh

yaks

has i

n di

stric

t NSA

P C

omm

it-te

es

Rs.

2.00

lakh

s

– 20

13 –

14

Rs.

4.57

lakh

s

– 2

013

– 14

for

Bal

ika

Sam

ridhi

Yo

jana

Nil

8C

oope

ratio

nIn

volv

emen

t of Z

Ps in

nom

inat

ion

of c

andi

date

s for

un

derg

oing

trai

ning

s con

duct

ed b

y IC

M, M

SCU

/C

CM

Nil

Nil

Sou

rce:

Dep

artm

enta

l Sou

rce:

The

stat

us o

n th

e tr

ansf

er o

f fun

ds a

nd fu

nctio

nari

es in

resp

ect o

f 8 D

epar

tmen

ts a

s on

01/0

7/20

14.



The Meeting in connection with the Devolution of Powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions was chaired by Shri P.C. Lawmkunga, Chief Secretary Manipur in the Conference Hall of Old Secretariat, Imphal on 23.12.13. The Chief Secretary had instructed all concerned Departments to submit an interim reply/compliance within 31st January 2014. However, till date none of the Departments except Transport Department has submitted any reply/compliance report.

The Deputy Director of RD & PR (April 2015) Government of Manipur pointed out that only Five (5) Departments have devolved the 3Fs completely till date and all the other 11 Departments are adopting a piecemeal devolution. The remaining other Line Departments have also been reminded to devolve their functions, funds and functionaries as approved by the Government at the earliest.

Five (5) Departments that have devolved the 3Fs completely till date are:

• RD & PR Department

• Fishery Department

• Horticulture Department

• Tribal Development

• Science & Technology Department

Recently, Transport Department has issued Government Order (GO) transferring functions to PRIs.

Effective devolution of powers to PRIs is also one of the important recommendations/conditions of 3rd State Finance Commission, 14th Finance Commission as well as the new Scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Panchayat Sashaktikaran Abhiyan (RGPSA).

In view of the constraints faced by the PRIs, the Meeting on Devolution of Powers to the PRIs held on 01/07/2014 with Shri P.C. Lawmkunga, Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur in the Chair decided that the manpower so transferred to the PRIs will be in the form of utilization so that they can continue to draw their pay and allowances from the parent department. However, a mechanism may be evolved to make payment of monthly salaries by the department only on receipt of attendance report from Zilla Parishads.



A comparative statement of fund transfer and devolution of functions with other contemporaries in the North East region is shown in the next table:

Table No.30: Status of transfer of funds and functions vis-à-vis other North Eastern States

State Amount Required tobe Transferred(` in crore)

Amount Actually

Transferred(` in crore)

Shortfall in Release of Fund

(` incrore)

Shortfall inrelease of

fund(in per cent)2

Number ofsubjectsdevolved

Manipur 179.90 58.10 121.80 67.70 % 16

Sikkim 140.69 22.14 118.55 84.26 % 15

Tripura 88.00 54.39 33.61 38.19 % 5

Assam 1275.64 415.47 860.17 67.43 % 23

Source: ATIR of the respective State for the year ended 31 March 2013

The 73rdAmendment Act envisioned that the PRIs shall have necessary powers to carry out all the functions entrusted, assigned or delegated to them and to exercise all powers specified under the MPR Act, 1994. However, due to nontransfer/partial transfer of funds and functionaries the PRIs were not able to perform the functions assigned to them more effectively and efficiently.

Thus, transfer of funds, functions and functionaries to PRIs was not adequate and effective to enable them to function as institutions of local self-government.

Vigilance Mechanism:

Social Audit : The primary objective of social audit is to bring the activities of PRIs under close surveillance of people to enable them to access the records and documents of PRIs. Such access to information would facilitate transparency and accountability in day-to-day functioning of PRIs. The State Government had established the Manipur Social Audit Agency (MSAA) in January 2014. The MSAA had identified MGNREGS and Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) schemes for taking up Social Audit. However recruitment of staff for MSAA was stated (April 2015) to be under process.

In response to audit query on the status of Social Audit in PRIs, the Director RD&PR stated (June 2014) that they cannot provide any information as none of the Gram Panchayat has submitted such report to the Directorate.



As per MGNREG Audit of Scheme Rules, 2011, the State Government needs to take up concrete steps to conduct social audit in every Gram Panchayat at least once in every six months. Though the MSAA was established in January 2014, there was no report of any social audit. As such, the Directorate needs to ensure that social audit is conducted as envisaged in the Scheme Rules.

Audit Mandate:

(1) Primary Auditor : The Director, Local Fund Audit (DLFA), Government of Manipur conducts audit of accounts of GPs and ZPs under Sections 44(1) and 74(1) of the MPR Act, 1994. The duty of the DLFA is to conduct audit of the accounts of PRIs and to forward the Audit Reports to the audited entities and the State Government.

The DLFA intimated (September 2014) that except for GPs under DRDA Imphal West, all the PRIs were covered during the audit of DRDAs during 2013-14.The Director further stated that no Audit Report for any of the years was compiled. Also, there was no case of follow-up action on the Inspection Reports (IRs) under Technical Guidance and Support (TG&S) arrangement. Therefore, IRs could not serve the purpose of such audit. Also, the DLFA did not submit its Annual Audit Plan to the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Manipur. In the absence of such plan, the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), could not suggest for any improvement of the Annual Audit Plan under TG&S.

(2) Organizational Set-up of Director, Local Fund Audit: The Director of Local fund Audit of Manipur is assisted by Joint Director, Assistant Directors, Audit Officers and other ancillary staff. As on 31 March 2014, there were 46 persons on the roll of DLFA against the sanctioned strength of 65.The DLFA conducts audit of account of Local Bodies and accounts of government offices/departments as internal audit cell of Finance Department, Government of Manipur. An audit party comprises one Audit Officer and two Auditors who work under the direct supervision of the Assistant Director/Joint Director.

(3) Audit by Comptroller and Auditor General of India : The State Government has entrusted (March 2012) audit of PRIs to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) with the responsibility of providing Technical Guidance and Support (TG&S) under Section 20(1) of the CAG’s Duty, Power and Conditions of Service (DPC) Act, 1971 in pursuance of the Thirteenth Finance Commission (XIIIFC) recommendations.



Accordingly the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Manipur conducted the audit of the accounts of the PRIs. The result of audit i.e., Annual Technical Inspection Report (ATIR) (audit of PRIs conducted during preceding years) is sent by the Principal Accountant General (Audit) to the State Government for necessary remedial action. The ATIR for the year ended March 2013 was laid on the floor of the State Legislative Assembly in July 2014.

(4) Audit Coverage : Audit of the accounts of 25 PRIs (four ZPs for the year 2011-13 and 21 GPs for the years 2008-13) was conducted during 2013-14. Results of the audit are given in the succeeding chapter.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY:

The study, with a view to understand the actual functioning or effectiveness of Panchayati Raj Insitution in the state has focus on the personal relationship between the Panchayat members/Pradhan and the people, had put an open ended questions to the respondents. It is clear from the data generated though this process that, most of the respondents are in good term with the members and also knows their respective Pradhan which is supported by the percentage of respondents who answer in positive i.e. 95.5% knows the Pradhan and 91.6% are in good term with the members including the Pradhan. However, despite this fact, majority of the respondents are not aware of their member’s political affiliation. This means that the political parties have a limited influence in the local Panchayati Raj set up at the grass root level. Most of the respondents (92.6%) are aware of the Gram Sabha indicates the high political awareness level of the respondents or the areas under study.

The actual functioning of the Gram Sabha at the village level indicates that the system though very popular, lacks transparency and contradicts the essence of democratic decentralization. This is evident from the data generated from the study which revealed that the meeting of the Gram Sabha is not at all frequent and the same is not announced ten (10) days prior to the date of meeting as against the stipulated guidelines. It also came to light that, majority of the respondents (46.7%) do not know who drafted the Plan for the Panchayat, while 31.2% says that the Panchayat members itself draft the plan. This means that the Gram Sabha is not involved in the planning for Panchayat area’s Annual Five Year Plan.

Another interesting finding of the study is that, no Gram Panchayat members had ever attended the Gram Sabha meeting except the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and the Gram Panchayat Secretary. It also came to light that, the Deputy



Collector, Block Development Officer or related Financial Institutions of the district had ever attended the Gram Sabha Meeting in the last many years which is an indicative of indifference attitude of the concern official in bringing real democracy at the grass root level.

More than Seventy Three percent of the respondents never attended the Gram Sabha meeting and majority of them are not aware of the number of meeting that was held in the last two years. This indicates that, majority of the people are not interested in the meeting or are not aware of the meeting due to information failure. Even from the respondent who regularly attended the meetings, majority of them are of the opinion that the Gram Sabha do not observe rules of procedures during the meeting and Gram Sabha does have the required Quorum for the meeting. This is evident from the percentage of responds that had been generated which shows that 70.7% of the respondents do not have the opportunity to speak, 73.1% are silent listeners in the meetings and 55.2% does not demand the minute of the meeting. This implies that the Gram Sabha meeting is neither democratic nor transparent as it ought to be. However, there is no conflict during the meeting and any decisions are taken on the basis of Show hand and the resolutions are put up in the village notice board for all to see.

Further, it is found that, majority (91.1%) of the respondent are not aware about the People’s Planning and the beneficiaries are not selected by the Gram Sabha. This is an indication that the government or the concern authorities are doing it on behalf of the people and the government is implementing Government schemes and programmes in the villages.

In regard to the functioning of Gram Panchayats (GP), majority of the respondents feel that, the performance of the GP is very poor in terms of development and dissemination of information. And 75.5% of the respondents feel that the GP and politician conceal information about fund transfer, Fund Received, expenditure incurred, allotment of beneficiaries and detail and progress of schemes and programmes.

Gram Panchayat meetings are confined to discussion of Budget, Village Action Plan, Disputes, crime, Social Auditing, Micro-Planning and other developmental works. Some of the schemes and developmental works which are being undertaken by the Gram Panchayat in the study areas are; Drainage, Construction of Road, Cleaning Ponds, MGNREGS, Old Age Pension, PDS, Water Supply, Waiting Shed, Community Hall, Housing, Streetlight, Tax collection, Health and Sanitation. Though some respondents are of the opinion that they are satisfied with the work of the Gram Panchayat



in regards to the implementation of the schemes and programmes, majority of them (97%) says that it did not benefits the people because the benefits of the schemes are share by the Pradhan, Members, DC, BDO and the line departments.

The survey also reveals that there are widespread corruption in the governmental agencies in relation to the functioning and implementation of Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI) in the state. This is evident from the fact that there is no Social Auditing and the people (83.3%) and especially the women are not involved in the decision making process, planning and monitoring of rural development programmes and majority of the respondents does not know about the Panchayat related Law/Rules and are not even aware about the presence of Bottom Level Planning or the existence of Block/District level Committee who are supposed to work for the benefits of the people.

Sixty Nine Percent of the respondents feel that Poverty Eradication Programmes are not properly implemented and Seventy Four percent of the respondents also feel that programmes/projects under PRI are not properly formulated or implemented as envisaged, so; it did not promote social justice and economic development as a whole. Moreover, majority of them feel that, genuine people do not get the welfare schemes and well deserving people areexcluded from the beneficiary list. Whatever projects or programmes already implemented are lying idle and poorly maintain and managed. Hence, the people under studies are discontent with the overall functioning of the PRI. This implies that the functioning of the Gram Sabha are not transparent, accountable, participatory and not truly democratic as envisaged by 73.4% of the respondents.

Substantiating to the fact that there are widespread corruption, Red Tapism and no Transparency in the functioning of Panchayati Raj Institution in the state, majority of the respondent also feel that, lack of awareness on Right to Information and Low level of Education (96.4%), Information failure (97.5%), No e-governance, No accountability (73%) and lack of people’s involvement as the main reasons for the unimpressive functioning and performance of the PRI in the state.

One of the major challenges for the PRIs is poor ICT infrastructure and no connectivity till GP level. In order to strengthen PRI it is critical that basic infrastructure like Panchayat Ghar, Furniture, electricity should be in place. Majority of officials at ZP/GP have low level of ICT awareness. There is a need to train the officials at the ZP/GP level in the use of IT Applications; Web based tools, accounting methods & software etc.



It is found that majority of services are being delivered through concerned line department, Zilla Parisha level and State Panchayati Raj department. Only services like NREGS, IAY, SGSY are offered at Gram Panchayat level.

Panchayat Members, currently, draw meager salary and allowances. The members are finding themselves in great hardships as their salary and allowances are not released in time. This low salary and allowances is also one of the factors for the paralysis of the PRIs in the state as the members are not willing to dedicate their time wholeheartedly. Many Panchayat Members are a disappointed lot. The meager salary and allowances drawn by the Panchayat Members are shown below:

Zilla Panchayat (District Panchayat):

1. Chairperson/Adhyaksha Rs. 10,000/- per month

2. Vice Chairperson/ Up Adhyaksha Rs. 6000/- per month

3. Member of the Zilla Parishad Rs. 4000/- per month

Gram Panchayat (Village level):

1. Pradhan Rs. 3000/- per month

2. Up-Pradhan Rs. 2000/- per month

3. Member Rs. 1000/- per month

It is evident from the study that, there are quite a few problems of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) to deliver greater local self-governance at the grass root level. Some the problems are;

1. Lack of Financial Power 2. Limited Executive Power 3. No full devolution of Power 4. Corruption/Red Tapism5. Undue interference from the state government in relation to framing

of rules which contradict the spirit of Panchayat6. Resistance from the Political Class and lack of political will and

commitment from the local MLAs and Ministersto allow PRIs to function as autonomous bodies

7. Lack of cooperation by the bureaucrats8. Lack of Political Education



Majority of the respondents feel that the present PRIs can be improved by incorporating the following suggestions and inputs;

1. Active participation of the people especially the women belonging to SC/ST in the decision making process at the grass root level.

2. Electing well qualified, honest and dedicated members in the Gram Panchayat.

3. Systematic coordination between the bureaucrats and the Panchayat members. Removal of bureaucratic control over the functioning and implementation of schemes and programmes.

4. Availability of real time information. Proper and effective Dissemination of information and creating greater awareness among the people at the grass-root level.

5. Transparency in the functioning and selection of beneficiaries6. Transparency in fund flow mechanism7. Possessing adequate skilled manpower8. ICT enablement for efficient service delivery

Recent Trend: Collective effort of ADCs and Zilla Parishads (ZPs) towards devolution of power Collective and sustained effort by the ADCs and the Zilla Parishads for complete devolution of powers by the State Government is in the offing. In order to ensure meaningful devolution of powers for establishment of effective local bodies in the hill districts, ADCs are planning to join hands with the Zilla Parishads of the valley for a sustained campaign. After the ADC election of 2010, the ADCs were not given due powers under the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act 1971. Even as the State Government issued an order for devolution of powers to ADCs pertaining to 26 departments, the devolution of powers was just for name sake and it remained on paper only. ADC Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen held several meetings with the State Chief Minister on actual devolution of powers to ADC but to no avail as some Cabinet Ministers and MLAs were deadly opposed to devolution of powers to ADCs.

Just as in Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur and Thoubal districts (four valley districts), there are District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) in the five hill districts viz. Tamenglong, Ukhrul, Senapati, Churachandpur and Chandel.However, funds sanctioned for flagship programmes like MGNREGS, AAY etc. through DRDA never reached ADCs of the five hill districts.



Now, they have started communicating with the Zilla Parishads on the issue.Already two rounds of meetings have been held between Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of ADCs and Adhakshya and Up-Adhakshya of Zilla Parishads. The meetings discussed about adopting a common approach to persuade the Government and ensure adequate devolution of powers to local bodies of both the hills and the valley.

Of late, there emerged a new trend wherein the ADCs and the ZPs come together for a sustained collective effort towards demanding full devolution of powers by State Government. This latest trend is the result of decades of denial to the local bodies; and to be precise, the result of violation of the Constitutional provisions by the State Government.

Financial Reporting

Financial reporting in PRIs is an important element for ensuring accountability. The matters relating to drawal of funds, incurring of expenditure, maintenance of accounts and rendering of accounts by GPs and ZPs are governed by the provisions of MPR Act, 1994, other Departmental Manuals, standing orders and instructions.

The PRIs maintain accounts on cash basis. All receipts and payments are required to be incorporated in the accounts as and when they occur so as to make the accounts complete and accurate. However, the MPR Act, 1994 and Rules made there under do not lay any provision for preparation of Annual Accounts.

Financial Reporting Issues

1. Basic Records not maintainedIn view of the nature of transactions of the PRIs, the following records are required to be maintained for greater accountability and transparency:• Principal Cash Book;• Advance Register;• Cheque Receipt and Issue Register;• Grants-in-aid Register;• Bill Register;• Stock and Issue Register; and• Asset Register (except for MGNREGS).



Audit of four Zilla Parishads and 21 Gram Panchayats however, showed that none of the PRIs except the nine test audited GPs of Imphal East District maintained the records as mentioned above. Also, in the absence of vital accounting records, actual position of utilization of funds, execution of various schemes, stock and stores and assets created by execution of development schemes could not be ascertained. Ensuring accountability of the PRIs’ authorities would not be possible without these vital records.

2. Deficiencies in maintenance of Cash Book

As per Central Treasury Rules, every officer receiving money should maintain a Cash Book. It also envisages that all monetary transactions should be entered in the Cash Book as soon as they occur; the Cash Book should be closed regularly and completely checked; an erasure or overwriting of an entry once made in the Cash Book is strictly prohibited. Test-check of Cash Books of 25 PRIs showed the following:

i. Most of the monetary transactions were not entered in the Cash Book on the date of their occurrence.

ii. Cash Books were not closed regularly and analysis of closing balance and physical verification of cash were not done.

iii. There was no practice of consolidation of daily/monthly total of each Subsidiary Cash Books in the Main Cash Book.

This indicated that the PRIs did not adhere to the provisions of financial rules and maintenance of Cash Book was not proper. Thus, this situation is fraught with the risk of lost, theft, defalcation and embezzlement of public money.

3. Bank Reconciliation Statement

Bank Reconciliation is a procedure which aims to reconcile the bank balance as shown in the Cash Book of the local body with that of the bank balance as per the Bank Pass Book/Statement received from the bank. However, none of the test-audited GPs and ZPs prepared Bank Reconciliation Statement. As an illustrative example, as on 31 March 2013 there was a cash balance of Rs.195.10 lakh as per Bank Pass Book though balance as per Cash Book of the Imphal East ZP was Rs.6.88 lakh which resulted a difference of Rs.188.22 lakh. The reason for the difference was not explained in the Cash Book through preparation of Bank Reconciliation Statement by the ZP. Thus, the authenticity of cash balances as per Cash Books of all the test-checked PRIs could not be ascertained in the absence of reconciliation of balances with Bank Pass Book.



4. Budget Estimates

Budget is the most important tool for financial planning, accountability and control. Under Sections 42 and 72 of the MPR Act, 1994, Budget proposal containing detailed estimates of receipts and disbursements for ensuing year is required to be prepared by GPs and ZPs. Such Budget proposal is to be submitted to the next higher authority for approval. If the approval of the higher authority is not received within such time as may be prescribed, or by the last day of the year, whichever is earlier, the budget shall be deemed to have been approved by the prescribed authority. However, test-check of four ZPs and 21 GPs showed that neither the ZPs nor GPs prepared Budget upto 2013-14.As such, the expenditure incurred by the PRIs was irregular. Besides, no financial control could be exercised on the GPs and ZPs by the State Government in such a situation.

5. Maintenance of Accounts

Sections 43 and 73 of MPR Act, 1994 stipulate that the accounts of GPs and ZPs shall be kept in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Test-check of records of four ZPs and 21 GPs showed that accounts were maintained on cash basis. However, the basic records such as consolidated cash books, grants-in-aid register, bill register, advance register, stock and issue register etc. were not maintained in all the test-audited PRIs except the 9 test audited GPs of Imphal East District. Accounts to assess the income and expenditure of the PRIs were not maintained in all the test-audited PRIs. Audit also observed that Model Accounting System (MAS) for PRIs prescribed by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India in consultation with the CAG of India which the State Government had agreed to adopt with effect from April 2013 was not adopted in any of the GPs and ZPs as of March 2014 due to lack of skilled personnel.

Financial Reporting was not credible as basic records/ registers were not maintained by the PRIs. Financial reporting in PRIs is inadequate as Cash Books were not properly maintained. The authenticity of cash balances as per Cash Books of all the test-checked PRIs could not be ascertained in the absence of Bank Reconciliation Statement. Budgets were not prepared by all the test-audited PRIs. In the absence of budget allocation the expenditure incurred by GPs and ZPs was irregular. Audit observed that Model Accounting System for PRIs prescribed by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India in consultation with the CAG of India was not adopted in any of the GPs and ZPs as of March 2014 without any recorded reasons.



Implementation of Schemes in Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs)

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS)

The objective of the MGNREGS is to enhance livelihood security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The major audit findings on implementation of the Scheme in the State are as follows:

Denial of employment to Job Card Holders

Para 7.1.8 of the Operational Guidelines of MGNREGS, 2008 provides that if workers are willing, with their consent portion of the wages may be earmarked and contributed to welfare schemes organized for the benefit of MGNREGS workers such as health insurance, accident insurance, survivor benefits, maternity benefits and other social security arrangements. Such a social security cover will be purely voluntary. No such contribution from the wages may be made without the consent of the workers concerned.

Audit of records pertaining to MGNREGS of Toubul and Nachou GPs under Bishnupur district showed that the District Programme Coordinator (DPC) Bishnupur accorded administrative approval and expenditure sanction of Rs. 939.30 lakh (1/7/DRDA(B)/NREGS/2007-08(M) dated 10/3/11) for execution of works under MGNREGS in Bishnupur CD block during 2010-11. Out of this amount, Rs. 57.73 lakh was allocated for Toubul GP for execution of six works under 50 per cent GP share and Rs. 91.87 lakh was allocated for Nachou GP for execution of nine works under 50 per cent GP share. However, only Rs. 49.74 lakh was released to Toubul GP after deducting Rs. 7.98 lakh at the DPC level for payment of insurance premium of workers at the rate of Rs. 705.90 per worker for 1131 job card holders. Similarly, only Rs. 79.17 lakh was released to Nachou GP after deducting Rs. 12.70 lakh at the DPC level for such payment for 1800 job card holders. However, examination of records showed that the job card holders in both the GPs neither expressed their willingness nor consented for enrolment of insurance out of the wages they were supposed to earn. Moreover, there were no insurance documents available in the GPs. The GPs stated that there was no such proposal from GP levels for such deductions and the deductions were made at the DPC’s discretion. As such the amount of ` 20.68 lakh deducted at DPC level was a deviation from the operational guidelines of the scheme.



Delay in payment of wages

Para 7.1.5 of the MGNREGS operational guidelines states that workers are entitled their wages on a weekly basis, and in any case within a fortnight of the date on which work was done.

Audit of records relating to MGNREGS implemented during 2013-2014 at three GPs and one ZP showed that Rs. 165.46 lakh was received during November 2012 to March 2013 for implementation of the scheme. Out of this fund, various construction works were executed during September 2012 to March 2013. Audit noticed that out of Rs. 37.74 lakh payable as wages for construction works, Rs.23.00 lakh was credited to the accounts of job card holders after a delay ranging from 25 days to 239 days and Rs. 14.74 lakh was yet to be credited (June 2013). This delay might have caused the financial hardship to the workers.

Expenditure incurred based on suspected fictitious records

Execution of “Land development with tree plantation at Sunusiphai Maning Playground” under MGNREGS by Phubala GP at the cost of Rs. 16.75 lakh (land development at estimated cost of Rs. 11.78 lakh and tree plantation for seven hectare at estimated cost of Rs. 4.97 lakh) showed the following irregularities:

As per completion certificate an expenditure of Rs. 16.75 lakh (Rs. 10.05 lakh as wages for 1745 Job Card holders for 4 days and Rs. 6.70 lakh as material cost for this work ) was incurred by the GP.

However, as per Measurement Book (MB) No. 1743 for the work, the total value of the work done was only Rs. 11.78 lakh.

There was no entry for plantation work amounting to Rs. 4.97 lakh indicating that plantation work was not carried out.

Both the MB and completion certificate did not bear date of start and date of completion.

As per vouchers for materials supplied/purchased, 550 truckloads of earth was procured for Rs. 4.40 lakh at the rate of Rs. 800 per trip/truckload. This quantity of earth was moved by a single truck (bearing registration No MN06/5 127) on 10/03/13 from Thongjaorok quarry which is located 9 km away from the work site. Even if the truck were to ply without stopping for loading and unloading at the rate of 1 Km/min, (or 60 km/hr.), the truck would take 165 hours or around 7 days to cover 9,900 km (9 km x 2 way x 550 trips). This is unrealistic.



As

per e

stim

ate,

man

go s

aplin

gs, b

io p

estic

ide,

fung

icid

es, n

eem

oil

and

cake

etc

. are

requ

ired

for t

ree

plan

tatio

n w

ork.

The

re w

as n

o re

cord

for p

urch

ase

of th

e m

ater

ial r

equi

red.

The

Mus

ter r

olls

and

acc

ount

list

for t

he Jo

b C

ard

Hol

ders

wer

e no

t mai

ntai

ned.

In v

iew

of t

he a

bove

, the

ent

ire e

xpen

ditu

re o

f Rs.

16.7

5 la

kh in

curr

ed b

y th

e G

P w

as d

oubt

ful.

Dou

btfu

l exe

cutio

n of

wor

ks

The

DPC

Bis

hnup

ur a

war

ded

(Nov

embe

r 201

2) tw

o w

orks

to th

e th

en P

radh

an o

f Phu

bala

GP

unde

r MG

NR

EGS

(50

per

cent

GP

shar

e) d

urin

g 20

12-1

3 fo

r Rs.

9.99

lakh

eac

h as

show

n in

the

tabl

e be

low

:

Tabl

e N

o. 3

1:D

oubt

ful e

xecu

tion

of w

orks

Sl.

No

Nam

e of

wor

kD

ate

ofst

art

No

ofda

ysN

o of

labo

urer

sM

ater

ial

(`)

Wag

es(`

)Sa

nctio

nam

ount

(`)

1N

ew c

onst

ruct

ion

of p

ublic

res

ervo

ir ta

nk w

ith

both

sid

e dr

aina

ge f

enci

ng a

nd b

athi

ng s

hed

at

Phub

ala

Mak

ha M

anin

g ne

ar L

ow c

anal

13/1

2/12

1042

03,

94,8

696,

04,8

009,

99,6

69

2N

ew c

onst

ruct

ion

of p

ublic

res

ervo

ir ta

nk w

ith

both

sid

e dr

aina

ge, f

enci

ng a

nd tw

o ba

thin

g sh

ed

at N

aran

sein

a M

aman

g

13/1

2/12

1042

03,

94,8

696,

04,8

009,

99,6

69

Tota

l7,

89,7

3812

,09,

600

19,9

9,33

8



As per the completion certificate and the relevant MB Nos. 808 and 809 both the works were recorded to have been started on 13/12/2012 and satisfactorily completed on 24/12/2012. Moreover, as per MRs, 420 labourers were recorded to have been utilised in each work creating a total of 8400 man-days. Consequently, the GP incurred expenditure of Rs. 7.90 lakh (Cheque Nos. 378736 and 378737) as material cost and Rs. 12.10 lakh (Cheque No. 378738) as wages for 8400 man-days.

Inspection by Audit and the GP staff on 2 1/01/2014 revealed the following irregularities:

The two works could not be shown for verification.

The Member of ward No. 3 and Up-Pradhan of the GP stated that out of the amount allocated for the work at Sl. No. 1, a piece of agricultural land was purchased at Rs. 9.99 lakh from a resident of Phubala Awang Maning Leikai due to proposal received from the locality. Purchase of land is not permissible under the scheme guidelines of MGNREGS.

The GP could not produce documents to substantiate the purchase of land.

With regards to the work at Sl No 2, no explanation was given.

In view of the above, the records furnished to Audit for the said works are suspected to be fictitious and the possibility of misappropriation of Rs. 19.99 lakh could not be ruled out.

Failure to close bank accounts

As per Government of Manipur orders (December 2007), the MGNREGA bank account for the Zilla Parishad (ZP) will be operated jointly by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Block Development Officer (BDO)/Programme Officer (PO) concerned of the Block. All MGNREGA accounts shall be operated jointly at 3 levels viz., District Programme Coordinator (DPC) level, Programme Officer (BDO) level and Gram Panchayat level. The State Government further ordered (November 2012) that institution or individual shall not maintain MGNREGS related bank or post office account. The DPC (or PO) is to ensure closure of such existing accounts maintained by institutions/individual/PRI bodies which could not be brought in conformity with the order.



Audit of MGNREGS records in Imphal West ZP during 2013-14 showed that till September 2012 the ZP maintained 15 Nos. of joint signatory (CEO and BDO/PO) bank accounts, one for each ZP constituency. In pursuant of the State Government order (November 2012), the ZP opened a new joint signatory (CEO, Adhyaksa and Executive Director of DRDA) bank account for MGNREGS with Allahabad Bank (account No. 50143984329) and routed all MGNREGS related receipts and payments subsequent to September 2012 through this account. However, 15 Nos. of bank accounts with a balance of Rs. 9.86 lakh as on March 2013 which existed prior to the Government Order were not closed as of May 2013 in violation of orders.

Failure to comply with Scheme Guideline

Para 1.4 of the Scheme guidelines of MGNREGS stipulated that a ratio of 60:40 as wage and material has to be maintained in implementing any work programme under the Scheme.

Audit of six works under MGNREGS taken up by the Imphal West ZP during July 2012 showed that the ZP spent Rs. 64.69 lakh of which Rs. 22.85 (35 per cent) lakh were spent on wages and the remaining Rs. 41.84 lakh (65 per cent) was spent on procurement of materials in violation of the guidelines. This shows that the ZP generated only 15869 man-days (Rs. 22, 85,136 ÷ Rs. 144) in executing those works. Had the ZP maintained the prescribed ratio for payment of wages Rs. 38.81 lakh (Rs. 64.69 lakh x 60 ÷ 100) could have been spent on wages, thereby generating 26,954 man-days (Rs. 38, 81,478 ÷ Rs.144).

Thus, rural job card holders were denied employment for 11,085 man-days (26,954 - 15,869) worth Rs. 15.96 lakh (11,085 x Rs. 144) thereby depriving livelihood security to the rural households.

Records not maintained

Para 9 of the Operational Guideline of MGNREGS, 2008 stated that the following vital records are to be maintained by implementing agencies explicitly to ensure transparency and accountability.

i. Muster Roll Receipt Register



ii. Social audit for works executed under MGNREGS

iii. Works Register

iv. Monthly Squaring of Accounts

v. Assets Register

vi. Complaint Register

vii. Monthly Allotment and Utilisation Certificate Watch Register

viii. Job Card Application Register

ix. Stock Receipt and Issue Register

Audit of records pertaining to MGNREGS of three GPs during 2013-14 showed that the GPs received and fully expended a sum of Rs.1,325.44 lakh under MGNREGS during the period from 2008 to 2013.However, none of the GPs maintained the vital records which are mentioned above. As such, transparency and accountability in implementing the scheme could not be ensured in all the three GPs.

Further, Phubala and Nachou GPs could not furnish the relevant records of expenditure incurred during the period from 2008 to 2012 despite issue of requisition and reminders. The GPs replied that the relevant records were in the custody of the then Pradhans and were not handed over at the time of taking over charge. Records pertaining to some of the works taken up during 2012-13 were misplaced and could not be traced after submission to Management Information System (MIS). Similarly, the Khoijuman Kwaksifai GP also could not produce relevant records for seven works worth Rs. 56.84 lakh taken up during 2012-13. Inability to produce records for expenditure raises doubts on actual implementation/execution of works and hence misappropriation of funds cannot be ruled out.

Doubtful expenditure

During the course of audit in 2011-13, Imphal West ZP could not produce Cash Book, Bill Register, vouchers, Grant-in-Aid Register, sanction copies, bank pass book, beneficiary list, APRs and other relevant documents in respect execution of two works involving Rs. 33.15 lakh as shown in the table below:



Table No. 32: Doubtful expenditure

Sl No Name of work Expenditure (`)

1Construction of toilet at Imphal West ZP office

3,00,000

2Schedule Caste Development Pro-gramme during the year 2011-13 (under TA& HD and MOBC Deptt)

30,14,505

Total 33,14,505

In the absence of relevant records, the expenditure cannot be vouched and hence is doubtful and needs further investigation.

Central Finance Commission Awards

Unfruitful Expenditure

As per the recommendations of the XII FC Grants two numbers of posts viz., Office Assistant (OA) and Computer Assistant (CA) were created in each GP and ZP. The Office Assistant is meant for maintaining accounts of the office and the Computer Assistant is for creation and maintaining database. The honorarium for each category is Rs. 7100 per month.

Audit of records of GPs during 2013-2014, showed that seven GPs spent Rs. 10.09 lakh (Rs. 5.30 lakh from XII FC award and Rs. 4.79 lakh from XIII FC award) for payment of honorarium for the office staff of (five GPs), purchase of computer (two GPs) and purchase of computer accessories (one GP) for maintenance of accounts and creation of database.

However, it was noticed in audit that neither accounts nor any database were maintained by the GPs. Hence, the expenditure of Rs. 10.09 lakh incurred for maintenance of accounts and creation of database was wasted.

Doubtful payment of wages of Rs. 2.30 lakh

As per Rule 133 of CGA (Receipt & Payment) Rules, 1983 and Para10.2.4 of CPWA Code, the payment made on MRs must be made or witnessed by the officer of the highest standing available in the disbursing officer, who should certify to the payments individually or by groups. The amount paid on each date shall be noted in words as well as in figures at the foot of the



Muster Roll (MR) and acknowledgement, duly stamped where necessary should be obtained from each payee on the MR in token of receipt of the payment.

Audit of the accounts of the Ngaikhong Khullen GP during 2013-14, noticed that the GP paid ` 2.30 lakh to labourers (during October 2010 to September 2011) through MRs being the wages for construction of three garbage pits under XIII FC Grants. However, the signature/thumb impressions of the labourers as well as signatures and countersignatures of the competent authorities were not appended in the relevant columns of the MRs in token of cash receipt and witness of the payment respectively. As such, the expenditure for Rs. 2.30 lakh incurred on payment of wages to the labourers seems to be doubtful.

Diversion of fund of Rs. 31.75 lakh

As per the Action Plan (2010-15) under XIII Finance Commission Grants to PRIs, the PRIs have to give priority for providing core services – Drinking Water, Sewerage, Solid Waste Management and Street Lights while utilising the grants. However, Audit of the accounts of four ZPs and 21 GPs during 2013-14 revealed that one ZP and seven GPs together diverted XIII FC grants of Rs. 31.75 lakh by incurring expenditures on inadmissible items like construction of bath room, crematorium panchayat building etc. Thus, the objectives of the XIII FC grants to give priority for providing core services were defeated.

Records on award of Twelfth and Thirteenth Finance Commission not produced

Audit of the accounts of six GPs during 2013-14 pertaining to utilization of XII and XIII FCs grants noticed that the GPs incurred an expenditure of Rs. 23.63 lakh (XII FC grants Rs. 19.08 lakh and XIII FC grants Rs. 4.55 lakh) during February 2009 to February 2012 on various purposesout of the XII and XIII FC grants. However, the relevant records such as bill vouchers, APRs, even cash books in some cases for the expenditure incurred were not produced to Audit. As such, Audit observed that there is lack of transparency in utilising the Finance Commission grants by the GPs. In the absence of relevant records the expenditure of Rs. 23.63 lakh was doubtful. The PRIs did not adhere to the guidelines of the MGNREGS with regards to ratio of materials and wages cost. Instances of delay in payment of wages to the Job card holders were also noticed. This has defeated the main objective of providing employment to rural poor. The PRIs did not maintain proper



records of works executed under State Finance Commission Award including basic supporting documents such as Muster Roll and data base. There were also instances of delay in completion of works. Though substantial fund was utilized from the XII-FC and XIII-FC Awards for maintenance of accounts records/database, the PRIs are yet to create any database and accounts records. Fictitious claims for works not actually executed were also done.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is evident from the study of the functioning of the local self governments in the state of Manipur that, majority of the people under surveyed under the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in the valley districts of manipur are not satisfied with the existing system of local self-government. It is because there is no tangible socio-economic and infrastructural development or changes in the areas/state with the introduction of local self-government. The State Government has not formulated clear policy regarding the staffing pattern of ZPs in the State. The periodicity for constitution of SFCs, as per Constitutional provisions, was not maintained by the State Government. The State Government has not devolved all the functions to the PRIs as envisaged in the XIth Schedule of the Constitution. Functionaries and funds were not adequately transferred for effective functioning of PRIs. District Planning Committees did not function. This indicatesthe lack of seriousness of concerned authorities for consolidation and integration of plans of the district for social justice and economic development in the grass root level.

Based on the findings from the exhaustive, inclusive and analytical studies on the subject, the following recommendations have been made;

1. That, full or real devolution of financial power to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) has not been happening since its commencement. The transfer of financial resources from the Central Government to the Local government has been manipulated by the state government as the mechanism to directly transfer financial resources to the local bodies is simply not operational. It is rather been marked with irregularity and exploitation. As the allocation and distribution of financial grant from the central government to the local bodies is controlled and done by the state government, the local bodies are made to depend on the state government’s wishes and whimps for financial grant.

2. Hence, direct and regular transfer of financial resources to the local bodies/Gram Panchayat without passing through the district



administration and state finance department may perhaps make real democracy works at the grass-root level.

3. People’s participation in the policy making process and involving them in identifying, formulating, auditing and monitoring of programmes and activities concerning them at the grass-root level must be made mandatory by adopting the Bottom-Up approach of development instead of the present Top-Down approach.

4. Social Auditing must be made compulsory at all levels. Regular, independent evaluation and assessment of projects and programmes must be made.

5. The Government should ensure that the financial guidelines of the Schemes are adhered to in letter and spirit; proper maintenance of records for the executed works; creation of database for the PRIs and passing claims for executed works only after independent verification by designated officials as enshrined in GFRs.

6. The Government may consider to ensure that maintenance of basic accounting records in PRIs; Preparation of budget estimate for PRIs and Adoption of the prescribed Model Accounting System for PRIs ae strictly adhered with.

7. The Government may consider that staffing in ZPs and GPs is prescribed and is sufficient for maintenance of accounts and carrying out their functions; making District Planning Committee functional and transferring of fund and functionaries to the PRIs as envisaged in the XIth Schedule of the Constitution to enable them to function as institutions of Local self-government.



REFERENCES:

Ananth Pur, K., and Moore, M. P. (2007). Ambiguous Institutions: Traditional Governance and Local Democracy in Rural India (IDS Working Paper 282), Brighton: Institute of Development Studies

Ananth Pur, Kripa. (2004, June).Rivalry or synergy? Formal and Informal Local Governance in Rural India (IDS Working Paper 226). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Appadorai, A. (1992), Indian Political Thinking through the Ages, Khama Pubishers, New Delhi.

Bakhsi, P.M. The Constitution of India, Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd. Delhi. 11th Edition, 2011, pp. 341.342

Bandyopadhyay, D. (2004), “Panchayat and Democracy” in Bandyopadhyay D. and Amitav Mukherji, New Issues in Panchayati Raj, New Delhi: Concept Publication Company.

Barthwal, C.P.(1997), Understanding Local Self Government, Bharat Book Centre, Lucknow.

Baviskar, B. S. (Ed)(2009). Inclusion and exclusion in local governance: Field studies from rural India. New Delhi: Sage Publication

Bhardwaj R.K.(1970), Municipal Administration in India, Sterling Publishers (P) Ltd, Delhi.

Bhargava, B.S.(1979), Panchayat Raj System and political Parties, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi.

Bhatnagar, S. (1978), Rural Local Government in India, Light and Life Publishers, New Delhi.

Biju, M.R. (2008), Panchayati Raj System: Towards Sustainable Rural Livelihood andDevelopment, Kanishka Publishers, Distributors, New Delhi.

Chandra Sekar, S.(2008), Panchayati Raj and Financial Resources, Regal Publications, New Delhi.

Crook, C. Richard., and Sverrisson, Sturla. Alan. (2001, Feb). Decentralization and poverty alleviation in developing countries: A comparative analysis or, is West Bengal unique? (IDS Working Paper 130)

Das, Hari Hara,(1992), Introduction to Panchayati Raj and Community Development in India, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.



Dayal Rajeshwar (1970), Panchatay Raj in India, Metropolitan Book Company, Delhi.

Elangbam Girani Singh (2006) :The Panchayati Raj and Rural Development in Thoubal District, Manipur, PhD thesis submitted to Department of Political Science, School of Social Science, Manipur University, Imphal, Manipur.

Fesler, W.James (1972), “Centralization and Decentralization”, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences Vol-11, Collier-Macmillan Publications, New York.

Gaikwad, V.R. (1969), Panchayati Raj and Bureaucracy, National Institute of Community Development, Hyderabad.

Gandhi, M. K. (1942), “My Idea of Village Swaraj”, Harijan, 26 July 1942.

Gandhi, M. K. (1946), “Panchayats in Independent India”, Harijan, 28 July 1946.

Gandhi, M. K. (1946[a]), “All Round Village Development”, Harijan, 10 November 1946.

Ghosh, Buddhadeb (2000), “Panchayati Raj: Evolution of the Concept”, ISS Occasional Paper Series – 25, New Delhi: Institute of Social Sciences.

Gouragopal Singh L.(1990), Local Self-Government in Manipur (1891-1981), Published by Karan Manmohar Singh, 1st Edition, Imphal.

Gurpreet Singh Brar (2010): Gram Panchayat in India: With Special Reference to Punjab, MaxfordBooks, New Delhi.

Ibohal Singh, M. (1986), A Study of Local Self Government in Manipur (With Critical Introduction) 1st edition.

Ibohal Singh, M.(1990), Local Self Government in Manipur, Shamurou Lakpa, Mayai Lambi Law College, Shamurou, Imphal.

Jain, S.C. (1967), Community Development and Panchayat Raj in India, Allied Publishers, Bombay.

Jain, S.P. (1977), Panchayat Raj and agriculture Development, Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.XXIII, No.3, JULY-September.

Joseph, F.Zimmerman (1978), State and Local Government, 3rd Edition, Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.



Kaushik, P.D. (2005), “Panchayati Raj Movement in India: Retrospective and Present Status” in Debroy, Bibek and P.D. Kaushik eds., Emerging Rural Development through “Panchayats”, New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

Maheshwari, S.R. (1971), Local Government in India, Orient Longmens, New Delhi.

Mathew, George and Mathew, Anand (2003), “India: Decentralization and Local Governance - How Clientelism and Accountability Work” in Hadenius, Alex ed., Decentralization and

Nahakpam Sunita Devi (1995) :Gandhi and Decentralization, MPhil dissertation submitted to Department of Political Science, School of Social Science, Manipur University, Imphal, Manipur.

Nandedkar, V.G. (1979), Local Government: Its Role in Development Administration, Concept Publishing Company, Delhi.

Nigam, S.R. (1968), Local Government, Kitab Mahal, (W.D) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi.

Ningthoujam Shachi Devi (2004), Democratic Decentralization as a step towards Political Development: A Study of the Panchayati Institutions of Imphal East and West District (1975-1997), PhD Thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science, School of Social Science, Manipur University, Imphal,Manipur.

Raghava Rao D.V. (1980), Panchayats and Rural Development, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi.

Sharma, M.L.(1996), Gandhi and Democratic Decentralization in India, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi.

Sharma, M.L.(1996), Gandhi and Democratic Decentralization in India, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi.

Sinha, D. Bakshi and P.S.K. Menon, Panchayati Raj in Scheduled Areas (New Delhi: ConceptPublishing Company, 2003)

Sudhakar, V. (2004), New Panchayati Raj System: Local Self-Government in Community Development, Mangal Deep Publications, Jaipur, India.

Sundar Ram, D. (Ed), Panchayati Raj and Empowering People: New Agenda for Rural India Essays in Honour of Shri.Mani Shankar Aiyar, Academy of Grassroots Studies and research ofIndia, Tirupati (A.P) and Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi, 2007.



Tripati, R.N. (1981), Block Planning; Its efforts for employment and income Distribution, Pnachayati Raj Journal, Vol.155, February.Seminar Papers, Journals & Reports:

Seminar Paper (unpublished) Longjam Gokulchand Singh, Panchayati Raj, A review on Panchayati Raj and Decentralization, organized by Indian Institute of Public Administration, Imphal, Oct, 1, 1994

.Sujata Rao(2007), Tribal Welfare through Panchayats: The Experience of PESA in Orissa, Working paper series No.55, 2007, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies, New Delhi.

National Committee on the Development of Backward Areas, Report on Development of Tribal Areas, (New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India, 1981)

Report of the task force on Panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) Planning Commission, New Delhi, December 2001

Yoginder K. Alagh’s Research Paper on “Panchayati Raj and Planning in India:Participatory Institutions and Rural Roads”, Asian Institute of Transport Development, New Delhi,

Report of the Expert Committee, September 2006, New Delhi. Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India.

Annual Administrative Report 2013-14, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur.

Reports of the First and Second State Finance Commission, Manipur. Annual Technical Inspection Report for the year ended 31 March

2014Institute for Human Development (2006): Manipur State

Development Report. Sponsored by the Planning Commission, Draft Report. (Delhi: Government of India).

D r a f t Government of Manipur Annual plan (2012-13) And 12th five year plan (2012-17) Proposals Planning department April, 2012

Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, Autonomous District Councils and Panchayati Raj Institutions in North-East India.Dialogue July- September, 2005, Volume 7 No. 1



Primary Sources:

1. ____________________: The Manipur Municipalities Act, 1975.

2. ______________________: The Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994.

3. _____________________: The Manipur Gram Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1978.

4. _____________________: The Gram Panchayat (General) Rules, 1977, under the Panchayati Raj Act.1975 (Manipur Act.No.12 of 1976).

5. _____________________: The Manipur Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1977, under the Panchayati Raj Act, 1975 (Manipur Act.No.12 of 1976).

6. _____________________: The Manipur Gram Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1978.

7. _____________________: The Manipur Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishad (General) Rules, 1995, under the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (Manipur Act No.26 of 1994).

8. ______________________: The Manipur Municipalities (Election Councillors) Rules, 1994.

9. The Union Territories Act, 1963.

10. The United Province Panchayati Raj Act.1947.

(a) Government of Manipur: The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act 1975 (Act No.12 of 1976) as amended from time to time.

(b) The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (Act No.26 of 1994) as amended from time to time.

11. Role of Manipur Khadi and village Industries Board, (For Rural Industrialization in Manipur), A Note book, Directorate of Manipur Khadi and Village Industries, 1994, Lamphel, Imphal.

12. Rural Developemnt and Panchayati Raj, a note book, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, 1989.



13. Panchayati Raj, Special Issue No.298, Directorate of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Government of Manipur, Imphal, Feb,1995.

14. North East Newsletter, Vol.XII,No.7, July 2010, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

15. National Commission to Review the working of the constitution, A consultation paper on Empowering and strengthening of Panchayati Raj Institution/Autonomous District Councils and Traditional Tribal Governing Institutions in North East India, December 2001, Vigyan Bhavan Annexure, New Delhi.

16. Mehta, Asoka (1978), Report of the Committee on Panchayati Raj Institutions, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India, New Delhi, August.

17. Mehta, Balwantray (1964), “Seminar on Fundamental Problems of Panchayati Raj”, speech delivered at the All India Panchayat Parishad, New Delhi.

18. Ministry of Panchayati Raj (2006), A Mid-Term Review and Appraisal, Volume II, 22 November, New Delhi: Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India.



ANNEXURE – I

LIST OF GRAM PANCHAYATS IN FOUR DISTRICTS UNDER 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS (CDBs)

1. Imphal East – I Development Block (Imphal East District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Tellou Chana Sheijang2. Nongren Chingnungkok3. Takhel4. Sawombung5. Pungdongbam6. Kangla7. Makeng Dolaithabi8. Uyumpok9. Pukhao10. Khundrakpam11. Haraoraou Tangkham12. Waiton 13. Kontha Khabam14. Luwangsangbam15. Nilakuthi16. Laipham Khunou17. Lairikyengbam Leikai18. Keirang Khomidok19. Heingang20. Khurai Nandeibam Leikai21. Khurai Konsam Leikai22. Laishram Leikai23. Khurai Chingangbam Leikai Khurai Khaidem Leikai24. Moirang Kampu

2. Imphal East – II Development Block (Imphal East District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Top Naoria2. Top Dusara



3. Thambalkhong4. Kshetrigao Pt – I5. Kshetrigao Pt – II6. Naharup7. Bamon Kampu8. Keirao9. Chanam Sandrok10. Bashikhong11. Thongju Pt – I12. Thongju Pt – II13. Uchekon Nongchup14. Uchekon Nongpok15. Khongman16. Torban Kshetri Leikai17. Keirao Makting18. Kiyamgei Muslim Arapti19. Kiyamgei20. Tulihal21. Angtha22. Top Chingtha23. Changamdabi24. Yambem 25. Tumukhong Moirang Purel

3. Jiribam Community Development Block (Imphal East District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Hilghat2. Dibong3. Sonapur4. Latingkhal5. Borokekra6. Jakurdhor

4. Imphal West – I Development Block (Imphal West District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Yarou Bamdiar (Khabi Bambiar)2. Kangmong



3. Moidangpok4. Yurembam5. Konthoujam 6. Ngairangbam7. Patsoi8. Langjing9. Lamjaotangba10. Bijoy Govinda11. Takyel12. Changangei13. Sagolband Thounaojam Leikai14. Sagolband Sapam Leikai15. Khonghampat16. Potsangbam 17. Khurkhul18. Phayeng19. Mayanglangjing 20. Lairenkabi Kadangband21. Phumlou22. Awing Khunou23. Maklang24. Kanglatongbi

5. Imphal West – II Development Block (Imphal West District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Naoria Pakhanglakpa Heinou Khongnembi2. Sangaiprou Mamang3. Mongsangei4. Malom5. Kodompokpi6. Lairanjam Meijrao7. Hiyangthang8. Langthabal Ningombam9. Oinam Thingel10. Maibam leikai11. Langthabal Mantrikhong Naorem Leikai



12. Samushang Bitra Urokhong13. Uchiwa14. Phougakchao Sekmaijin15. Laphupat Komlakhong

6. Thoubal Development Block (Thoubal District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Turel Ahanbi Atoukhong2. Oinam Sawombung3. Leishangthem4. Khekman5. Moijing6. Irong Chesaba7. Maibam Uchiwa8. Wangkhem9. Leirongthel Ningel10. Charangpat11. Lourembam12. Kangyambem13. Khangabok Pt – I14. Khangabok Pt – II15. Khangabok Pt – III16. Heirok Pt – I 17. Heirok Pt – II18. Heirok Pt – III19. Sangaiyumpham pt – I20. Sangaiyumpham Pt – II21. Wangbal22. Tentha23. Wangjing24. Samara25. Langathel26. Sapam27. Teckham

7. Kakching Development Block (Thoubal District)



Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Pallel2. Irengband 3. Wabagai4. Keirak5. Hiyanglam6. Mayeng Lamjao7. Hayel Hangoon8. Sekmaijin9. Arong Nongmaikhong10. Langmeidong11. Waikhong12. Pangaltabi13. Wangoo14. Chairel15. Serou

8. Bishnupur Development Block (Bishnupur District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Utlou2. Sanjenbam – Pukhrambam3. Leimapokpam4. Ishok5. Irengbam6. Keinou7. Ngaikhong Khullen8. Toubul9. Nachou10. Khoijuman – Kwasiphai11. Thinungei12. Phubala



9. Moirang Development Block (Bishnupur District)

Sl. No. Name of Gram Panchayat1. Ngankha Lawai2. Tronglaobi Terakhongsangbi3. Torbung4. Kha Thinungei5. Moirang Khunou6. Thanga Pt – I7. Thanga Pt – II8. Wangoo9. Wangoo Terakhong10. Borayangbi11. Kwakta12. Saiton



ABOUT THE CENTRE

Social exclusion is a multidimensional process of progressive social rupture, detaching groups and individuals from social relations and institutions and preventing them from full participation in the normal, normatively prescribed activities o the society in which they live. The concept of social exclusion is of recent origin and many of our socio-political problems are increasingly attributed to social exclusion in the broadest sense. Our constitution guarantees equality to all citizens yet we are not above different forms of discrimination and inequality. The most elementary pre requisite for the building of a democratic society is overcoming exclusion. Acknowledging that overcoming all forms of exclusion and discrimination is not only a pre requisite for a strong and vibrant democratic state but obligatory for a plural state like India, that the University Grant Commission have approved the establishment of Centres in universities for study of social exclusion and inclusive policy in 2006. The centre for the study of social exclusion and inclusive policy was established in Manipur University by the University Grants Commission on 17th May 2008. The main objectives of the Centre are: to conceptualize and understand the nature and dynamics of social exclusion and suggest for inclusive policies; to study the extent of social exclusion; to develop and understand the nature of discrimination at an empirical level; to make comparative study of exclusion and inclusion in the state vis-à-vis India; to suggest and recommend in the formulation of policies for uplifting the rights of excluded groups and hence eradicating the problem of exclusion and discrimination.

The centre aims at building an egalitarian Manipuri society through dynamic, innovative, inclusive modes of proven quality education and preserving the cultural diversity while promoting communal harmony at all levels. The centre visualises social change by creating a socio-economic and politico-legal justice and sense of pride and dignity in every citizen through inclusive means. It also aims at liberating the marginalised section of the society by redeeming them from their misery and tragic sufferings and ultimately to include them in the mainstream socio-economic and political processes and development by way of inclusive approach.



Vision

Our vision is to develop the appropriate categories in terms of which social exclusion can be best understood and minimised to the extent possible by making it as transient as possible.

Mission

• To study the many dimensions of social exclusion in the region• To keep a tab on dynamics of social exclusion in the region • To provide a forum where experiences can be shared• To disseminate the finding of such study and experience sharing

among stakeholders

Objectives

• The main objectives of the Centre are:1. The main objectives of the Centre is to study the plans and

policies related to the disadvantaged groups and to analyzes and review the studied literatures regarding social exclusion and discrimination in India and especially Manipur and other North Eastern states of India.

2. It also aims to create awareness at every levels and areas so as to rmpower the marginalized section of the society.

3. To develop distinctive approach to social exclusion4. To create index and indicators on social exclusion5. To critically evaluate the existing public policies vis-à-vis

social exclusion6. To Develop alternative model for future public policy

initiatives.7. To conceptualise discrimination, exclusion and inclusion

based on ethnicity, religion, age, race, gender, physical and psychological abilities in the Indian context

8. To formulate policy guidelines for protecting the rights of socially excluded groups and suggesting ways of eradicating the problem of exclusion and discrimination.

9. Developing an understanding of discrimination at an empirical level.

10. To eliminate social exclusion in all forms from the society11. To spread the feeling of oneness of human kind.12. To develop an understanding of the nature and dimensions

of discrimination and exclusion.



Date post:	15-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE … · in 1992 by introducing the 73rd Amendment to...

Documents