Sanitation Tranche Allocation in a Gram Panchayat
The Bishanpur Gram Panchayat has 420 households and has just received ₹18,00,000 as its sanitation tranche for the year. A household survey shows 70 households with a working toilet, 110 with a toilet that is broken, unroofed or has no water connection, and 240 with no toilet at all. Approved unit costs are ₹15,000 for a new twin-pit toilet, ₹4,000 to repair an existing one, ₹3,000 for a soak pit and ₹60,000 for a vermicompost unit. The school and the anganwadi have no functional toilets, but those are funded from a separate education head. The Mukhiya wants to spend on the vermicompost unit first because a photograph must be sent to the block office this month. A group of landless families has threatened to boycott the Gram Sabha unless their households are covered first. Two wards have not held a social audit in three years, and the block office has asked for the utilisation plan in writing.
1. Prepare a defensible first-year allocation of the ₹18,00,000 and show the arithmetic. Justify the order of priorities you choose.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - repair before new construction. Repairs: 110 × ₹4,000 = ₹4,40,000.
Step 2 - new toilets with what remains. Balance = ₹18,00,000 − ₹4,40,000 = ₹13,60,000. New toilets possible = ₹13,60,000 ÷ ₹15,000 = 90 (cost ₹13,50,000), leaving ₹10,000.
Step 3 - state the gap honestly. 240 households need a new toilet; only 90 can be built. 150 households carry forward to the next tranche. The ₹60,000 vermicompost unit is not funded now - it costs exactly four toilets. Soak pits at ₹3,000 × 90 = ₹2,70,000 cannot fit either and must be met from convergence (MGNREGA labour component, the Finance Commission tied grant, or CSR), not silently dropped.
Justification of order. ₹4,000 converts a defunct asset back into a used toilet, whereas ₹15,000 creates one new user-household; per rupee, repair protects more households. Within the 90 new units, the Gram Sabha-approved priority list must place landless, SC/ST and vulnerable households first, and the resolution must record that choice - otherwise the boycott threat becomes a legitimacy problem, not just a political one.
2. A ward member argues that sanitation is a state subject and the Panchayat has no business spending this money; he wants it returned. Assess this claim.
Read the worked answer
The claim is wrong on both constitutional and programme grounds.
- The 73rd Constitutional Amendment (1992) inserted Part IX and the Eleventh Schedule, which lists functions entrusted to panchayats, including health and sanitation, drinking water and rural housing. State legislatures have devolved these functions; Bihar has done so through its panchayat legislation.
- Centrally sponsored sanitation programmes are implemented through the Gram Panchayat, which is the implementing agency for household toilets, and require Gram Sabha approval of the plan and a social audit.
- The Finance Commission's tied grants to rural local bodies are released against a published plan and audit; returning the money forfeits future instalments and leaves the 150 households uncovered.
The correct response is not to return funds but to regularise two weaknesses the member has accidentally exposed: the two wards with no social audit in three years must hold one before utilisation is certified, and the written utilisation plan must be passed by the Gram Sabha, not signed by the Mukhiya alone.
3. A household refuses a twin-pit toilet, saying that in a relative's house the pit filled up within three years. What technical and procedural response is defensible?
Read the worked answer
Take the objection seriously - it usually describes a real design or use fault, not superstition.
Diagnose first. A pit fills early if it was built as a single pit instead of twin alternating pits, if it is undersized for the number of users, if there is no soak pit so liquids enter the pit, or if solid waste and ash are thrown in. A twin-pit toilet is designed so that one pit is used while the other composts; when the first fills, the flow is switched, and the filled pit is emptied safely after about one to two years of composting. That cycle only works if the pits are correctly sized and the effluent goes to a soak pit.
Respond. Re-survey the relative's toilet, correct the design, and offer an alternative where the water table is high or the plot is tiny (a prefabricated or bio-toilet). Do not coerce or mark the household as 'defecating in the open' to claim the incentive. Record the technical objection and the remedy in the Gram Sabha minutes; a documented design fix is also the cheapest way to stop the same refusal spreading to the neighbouring wards.