*Finance, Law Deptts delaying release of funds
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, July 5: Notwith-standing the fact that judicial infrastructure is a crucial component for improvement of justice delivery in the courts, the physical condition of 64% court buildings is either poor or very poor in Jammu and Kashmir and 20% courts are functioning either from private buildings or buildings of other departments. Moreover, an expenditure of Rs 157.37 crore was incurred without obtaining building permissions from the concerned authorities.
The dismal scenario vis-à-vis judicial infrastructure of Jammu and Kashmir has been painted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in its report tabled in the State Legislature during the ongoing Special Session at Srinagar yesterday.
In J&K, modernization of infrastructure facilities is carried out under various schemes like Development of Infrastructural Facilities for Judiciary (DIFJ), which is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, State Sector Infrastructure Projects (SSIP) and e-Courts Mission Mode Project (CMMP). The Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs is the administrative department for the High Court and subordinate judiciary.
An audit review was undertaken of modernization of judicial infrastructure in the State, which was conducted between February 2016 and May 2016 by test-check of records of the administrative department, the Registrar General J&K High Court and subordinate judiciary of seven districts—Rajouri, Kathua, Doda and Reasi in Jammu region and Baramulla, Kupwara and Anantnag in Kashmir valley covering period between 2011-12 and 2015-16.
During the audit, position of infrastructure of 39 courts in Jammu and 30 courts in Kashmir of these seven districts out of total 177 courts in the State was checked and physical condition of 64% court buildings was either found poor or very poor. Moreover, about 20% courts were found functioning either from private buildings or buildings of other departments. Even an expenditure of Rs 157.37 crore was incurred on 10 works in respect of which building permissions had not been sought from the concerned authorities.
“Despite availability of resources under DIFJ and CMMP, there remained critical gaps in infrastructure as well as computerization of records in courts”, the CAG said, adding “the facility of computer trained human resource and full internet facilities had not been provided in 75% and 74% courts respectively. Even 93% courts lacked basic requirement of separate toilets for men and women and 23% didn’t have library facilities”.
Stating that Five Years Plan is considered as the Perspective Plan and it forms the basis for execution of various activities, the CAG said, “Annual Action Plans are to be prepared from the Perspective Plan and works prioritized for completion within the specified period. However, no Perspective Plan had been prepared by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs as a result of which projects were identified on random basis without any prioritization”.
About 20 projects were sanctioned by the Government during 2011-16 against identified 73 projects. Of these 20 projects, 18 were taken up for execution and out of eight due for completion between March 2015 and March 2016 only three had been completed, the CAG said, adding the process of 53 projects was uncertain as they faced various impediments including delay in sanction by the Government and delay in completion of procedural formalities by the judicial authorities.
The CAG has also pointed out that utilization of Government of India funds declined from 78% in 2011-12 to 35% in 2014-15 except in 2015-16 when it was about 95%. However, the State share of Rs 3.36 crore lapsed during the period between 2011 and 2016 due to non-utilization, which was attributed to delay in acquisition of land and weather conditions in the State.
Putting the Departments of Finance and Law in the dock for delay in release of funds, the CAG has pointed out that funds to the tune of Rs 117.89 crore were released by the Government of India during 2011-16 to Finance Department, which released these funds to Department of Law after a delay of 12 to 131 days. Similarly, Law Department released Rs 109.94 crore to the executing agencies after delay of one to 265 days.
“There was also delay of one to 211 days in release of matching share of Rs 26.80 crore out of Rs 43.90 crore by the administrative department to the executing agencies”, the CAG said, adding “the delay contributed to non-completion of projects in time”.
As per the guidelines of the schemes, a State Level Monitoring Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary or the Planning Secretary of State Government having Registrar High Court, Law Secretary and Chief Engineer, PWD as members is required to be constituted. Further, a District Level Monitoring Committee is also required to be set up to submit separate quarterly reports to the SLMC.
Though the SLMC and DLMCs were constituted in August 2010 yet no monitoring reports were available either with the administrative department or High Court, CAG said, adding “the monitoring of projects was conducted through review meetings by analyzing the physical and financial progress reports submitted by the executing agencies and no separate monitoring reports were available”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel