According to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the amendments in the state statutes were not supported by firm action from Himachal Pradesh in terms of empowerment of urban local bodies (ULBS) to discharge their functions freely and effectively.
CAG said this defeated the spirit of the Constitutional amendment, as is evident from the inconsistencies noticed during the course of the performance audit. The Report No. 1 of the year 2022 of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India — Performance Audit on Efficacy of Implementation of 74 Constitution Amendment Act, 1992- Government of Himachal Pradesh — was forwarded to the government on July 1, 2022, and laid on the table of the Vidhan Sabha.
This report contains significant results of the performance audit conducted to ascertain the ‘Efficacy of Implementation of 74th Constitution Amendment Act, 1992’ covering the period from April 2015 to March 2020.
The Municipal Corporations and other municipalities namely, Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats are governed by the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (HPMC Act amended October 2016) and the Himachal Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1994, (HPM Act amended September 2016).
The CAG said, “Though the state government carried out amendments in the state statutes namely HPMC Act & HPM Act to comply with the provisions of 74th CAA, these amendments were not supported by firm action in terms of empowerment of ULBS to discharge their functions freely and effectively. This defeated the spirit of the Constitutional amendment, as is evident from the inconsistencies noticed during the course of the performance audit.”
The overall objective of the CAG’s performance audit was to ascertain whether ULBS have indeed been empowered in terms of funds, functions and functionaries to establish themselves as effective institutions of local self-government and whether the 74th CAA has been effectively implemented in the State.
According to a statement from CAG, the 74th CAA authorised the state government to enact laws to empower ULBS with powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government to transfer various responsibilities to municipalities and to strengthen municipal-level governance.
The notification regarding the devolution of functions had been issued (August 1994).
Of the 18 functions, one function was not devolved to ULBS. In the case of remaining 17 functions, ULBS were solely responsible for five functions; were mere implementing agencies for four functions; had limited role with overlapping jurisdiction of state departments/parastatals for six functions; and had no role for two functions.
The term of the office of the mayor and deputy mayor was not coterminous with the duration of the House of municipal corporations. However, the term of offices of the presidents and vice-presidents of municipal councils and nagar panchayats were coterminous with the duration of municipalities.
According to CAG report, meetings of the Houses of ULBS were not held regularly. The percentage of number of meetings of House of ULBS held when compared with mandatory number of meetings, ranged between 35 per cent and 95 per cent during 2015-20.
All three Standing Committees were formed in the test-checked 14 ULBs. However, against prescribed number of 3,640 meetings, only 173 meetings were held in three ULBS (MC Solan: 44, MC Nahan: 83 and NP Sunni: 46). No meetings were held in remaining 11 selected ULBS. Ward Committees (WCs) were not constituted in any of the test-checked ULBs except in Municipal Corporation Shimla.
District Planning Committees (DPC) were constituted in all the districts of test-checked ULBS, however the ULBS had not prepared and submitted respective development plans to DPC.
According to the CAG, there was no uniformity in method of levying the property tax. Surveys to enumerate the properties was not as per time schedule envisaged. Digitising property database using Geographic Information System (GIS) and automating property tax calculations was not put in place for all the ULBS. Recovery on account of property tax (14.69 crore); conservancy tax (3.82 crore); rent from commercial establishments (10.66 crore) was outstanding thereby showing the ineffectiveness of ULBS in augmenting of their own revenue.