Conflicts in different Urban Development Agencies
#1

Conflicts in different urban development agencies like Urban Improvement Trusts or Development Authorities and Local Municipal corporations 


The 12th Schedule of the 74th CAA, defined the functional domain to be allocated to the urban local bodies in India. These functions of the municipalities range from broad statements like planning for economic and social development, slum improvement and up gradation to very specific items like fire services, regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries. The first problem inherent in the Schedule is that it doesn’t distinguish between different levels of municipalities. Effectively, the municipal functions as described in the 12th Schedule for a big municipal corporation like Ahmedabad and Lucknow is the same as for a transitional or smaller municipalities of Angul in Odisha and Solan in Himachal Pradesh. Secondly, most items mentioned in the 12th Schedule like urban planning, regulation of land use, planning for economic and social development, slum improvement, poverty alleviation, water supply, roads and bridges already form a part of the State list in Schedule 7. Constitution only enables State Legislatures to assign functions by law but it is only up to the states to assign or not to assign functions to the ULB.


 Most state governments have encroached into the domain of the purview of the local governments and on conflict, the Courts haven’t been clear about the functional domain of the urban local bodies as well. In a 2004 case, the courts held that “It is for the State legislature to decide by expressing its will through legislation.... In pronouncing the constitutional validity of a statute, the Court is not concerned with the wisdom or imprudence, the justness or otherwise of the law. If that which is passed into law is within the scope of power, the law must be upheld”.

Given the vacuum within which the functional domain operates, it is no surprise that the development authorities in India have taken the role of de-facto planning and implementing agency in India. As a study undertaken by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) showed, that the planning and zoning of urban land, execution of large public purpose projects have been kept out of the purview of the local bodies and within the domain of unelected development authorities which is usually headed by the Chief Minister of the State. Given the same domain within which both, the Development Authorities and the Municipalities operate, friction amongst the two is bound to arise. Though studies have been few, in a paper assessing the relationship between Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), authors notice that “MCGM and MMRDA, where they are expected to cooperate fail to do so. 


Given the extent of interdependencies, one would expect the two organisations to coordinate their functioning for the benefit of the citizens. Instead, political rivalries between the ruling parties at the state and local level play out and pose a hindrance to cooperation.” While understanding the reality of capacities and finances of the municipalities in India, it is pragmatic to allow for a development authority to work on the large regional perspective but this should be in consonance and not exclusion with the elected representatives of the urban local bodies.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)