Plea in Chhattisgarh High Court claims SPVs for smart cities of Bilaspur and Raipur are usurping powers of elected Municipal bodies

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been moved in the Chhattisgarh High Court over the administration of the smart cities at Bilaspur and Raipur by Special Purpose Vehicles (Vinay Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh). .The petitioner has contended that the Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) have unlawfully usurped the functions and powers of the concerned elected municipal corporation or the Nagar Palik Nigams. .The petitioner, practicing advocate Vinay Dubey (petitioner) has specifically challenged the constitutionality of the functioning of two SPVs, Bilaspur Smart City Limited and Raipur Smart City Limited, both government companies which are incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013..Bilaspur and Raipur were selected as part of a scheme launched by the Central government in 2015, called the "Smart City Scheme” to develop self-sustained cities in India. In 2016, the Joint Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh issued an order constituting a Board of Directors for Raipur Smart City Limited and Bilaspur Smart City Limited. .No elected member of either Nagar Nigam was appointed as Director, the petitioner says, even though the urban local body is supposed to have 50% ownership. .It is highlighted that while the Central government is stated to have provided that representatives of the urban local body would be appointed as a director of the SPV-company "in Chhattisgarh no elected member and even the Mayor and Speaker has been appointed as Director in the concern SPV’s Board.".The funds meant to be used by the municipal corporation is being used by these SPVs by completely bypassing these elected bodies, the petitioner has further contended. .Even the schemes on which the money is going to be spent is not brought to the notice of any of the Nagar Nigam members, even though the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Municipal Corporation) Act, 1956 entrusts powers to the municipal bodies to plan and develop the area, the petition states. .This is contended to be in clear violation of Articles 243 P to 243 ZG of the Constitution i.e. the provisions dealing with self-governments.."Funds meant for Urban Local Bodies are now being diverted to SPVs in contravention of legal scheme," the petition states. .It has further been highlighted that between 2016 and 2020 both Raipur Smart City Limited and Bilaspur Smart City Limited executed many projects by spending hundreds of crore rupees with no supervision and monitoring of the elected body of the Nagar Nigam of Raipur and Bilaspur. .This undermines the supremacy of the elected body of the Nagar Palik Nigam, it is contended. .In this backdrop, the following prayers have been made before the High Court:Issue a direction to quash the formation of the Bilaspur Smart City Limited and Raipur Smart City Limited. OR To direct Bilaspur Smart City Limited and Raipur Smart City Limited to act and work as subordinate to the Elected bodies of the Nagar NigamsTo diect the reconstitution of the Board of Directors of the two SPVs so that atleast 50% of the members would come from elected members of the Nagar Palik Nigam Bilaspur and Raipur respectively. To direct that the Mayor and Speaker of the elected bodies be made as member of the Board of Directors of the two SPVs.To direct that post facto approval of all development works completed by the Bilaspur Smart City Limited and Raipur Smart City Limited be obtained from the concerned elected bodies.Direct the constitution of Wards Committee and Mohalla Samiti in the Nagar Nigam of the State and the framing of rules for the constitution, functions, powers and procedure for conduct of business of the Wards Committee. .The matter came up before a Bench of Chief Justice PR Ramachandra Menon and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu last week. However, it was adjourned after the petitioner sought time to make certain amendments to the plea. It is expected to be taken up again after four weeks. .The Court also asked the respondents to complete their pleadings in response to the prayers raised by the petitioner. .Advocate Sudiep Shrivastava appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Agrawal represented the State government.Assistant Solicitor General Ramakant Mishra represented the Central government. .[Read Order]