Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratanlal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No. 1901/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABAL PUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 1901 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
RATANLAL YADAV S/O SHRI HARIRAM
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O. WARD NO. 5,
PREMPURA, GARM PANCHAYAT PREMPURA,
TEHSIL AND DISTT. TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UDAYAN TIWARI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR,
TIKAMGARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIKAMGARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. RAMSAKHI, W/O SHRI
DHARMENDRA RAJAK, R/O GRAM
PREMPURA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA, SACHIV,
GRAM PANCHAYAT PREMPURA, TEHSIL
2 W.P. No. 1901/2018
AND DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI
SHRIKANT SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 16.06.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Tikamgarh in Appeal No. 167/Appeal/2016-17 and order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Tikamgarh in Appeal No. 405/Appeal/2016-17 by which the name of the petitioner from the list of BPL Card holder has been deleted.
2. It appears that on 25.10.2016, an advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. On the very same day, the petitioner moved an application before the Tehsildar for inclusion of his name in the list of BPL Card holder. On 25.10.2016 itself an enquiry was conducted by Patwari and on 25.10.2016 itself an order was passed thereby including the name of the petitioner and his family in the list of BPL Card holders. On 26.10.2016, the wife of the petitioner submitted her application form for recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Thereafter, a complaint was made to the effect that in fact the petitioner is not a person who can be said to be living below the poverty line but in fact he belongs to a very rich family. His father had remained Sarpanch for 25 long years. His mother is sitting Sarpanch 3 W.P. No. 1901/2018 of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner is residing jointly along with his father and the family of the petitioner is having Tractor, Motorcycle. The SDO, Tikamgarh directed the Secretary, Gram Panchayat to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Prempura, Tehsil and District Tikamgarh submitted his report dated 02.06.2017 pointing out that the Tractor and Motorcycle is in the name of father of the petitioner. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat was not aware of the agricultural land held by the petitioner or his father and accordingly, it was observed that necessary information may be called from Patwari. It was further claimed that the petitioner is residing in a Pakka house along with his father. Although, the family is joint but still separate ID have been prepared. The house is full of modern amenities. During the BPL survey, the petitioner had suppressed the correct information and by giving a false information that the house is Kachcha got his name included in the BPL list, whereas; he is residing jointly along with his father in a Pakka house. The mother of the petitioner is Sarpanch and, therefore, it was opined that the name of the petitioner be deleted from the list of BPL Card holder.
3. The SDO, Tikamgarh after hearing both the parties passed an order dated 16.06.2017 thereby directing to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of BPL Card holders.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the Additional Collector, Tikamgarh by order dated 26.12.2017 passed in Case No. 405/Appeal/2016-17.
5. Challenging the order passed by the SDO, Tikamgarh, it is 4 W.P. No. 1901/2018 submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the SDO, Tikamgarh has directed the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Prempura to submit the BPL survey report, whereas; he should have directed the Tehsildar to do the needful. Thus, the findings given by SDO, Tikamgarh are incorrect and are liable to the set aside.
6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No. 4 has supported the findings recorded by the SDO, Tikamgarh as well as Additional Collector, Tikamgarh.
7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
8. On 25.10.2016, an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker, Gram Panchayat Prempura, District Tikamgarh was issued. On the very same day, the petitioner filed an application before the Tehsildar, Tikamgarh for inclusion of his name in the list of BPL Card holder. On the very same day, a report from Patwari was called who also submitted his report and on 25.10.2016 itself, the name of the petitioner was recorded for the first time in the list of BPL Card holder and on 26.10.2016, the wife of the petitioner submitted her application form for the post of Anganwadi Worker.
9. The petitioner is aged about 42 years. However, for the first time he moved an application for inclusion of his name in the list of BPL Card holder on 25.10.2016 and that too when an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker was issued. Really surprising that the Tesildar, Tikamgarh acted in a swift manner and directed the Patwari to submit his report. Even the Patwari submitted his report on the very same day and the Tehsildar, Tikamgarh passed an order on 25.10.2016 itself for including the name of the petitioner, his 5 W.P. No. 1901/2018 wife and two children in the list of BPL Card holders. Why so much of haste was shown by the Patwari as well as the Tehsildar is not known but one thing is clear that on 25.10.2016, an advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker and 10 Marks were reserved for the candidates who are holding the BPL Card.
10. This Court has already considered the conduct of the Tehsildar, Tikamgarh by showing undue haste in including the name of the petitioner in the list of BPL Card holder.
11. The petitioner has not disputed that he is residing jointly along with his father. Although, it is the case of the petitioner that in the same premises, three brothers and his father are residing in a joint family but in a different portion. The petitioner has claimed that he is residing in a portion which is Kachcha house but the petitioner has not disputed that the family of the petitioner is joint and residing in the same premises. The Panchayat Secretary has given a specific finding that the petitioner by giving a false information had projected that he is residing in a Kachcha house in fact he is residing in a Pakka house. This finding of fact is being challenged by the petitioner. However, except making verbal submissions, no other material evidence has been placed on record to show that the house in which the petitioner is residing is a Kachcha house and not Pakka house as projected in the report submitted by the Panchayat Secretary.
12. Furthermore, it is undisputed fact that the mother of the petitioner is a Sarpanch. Before the SDO, Tikamgarh, a specific stand was taken by the respondent No. 4 that father of the petitioner had remained Sarpanch for 25 long years. The petition is completely silent on this 6 W.P. No. 1901/2018 averment.
13. Undisputedly, the father of the petitioner is having agricultural land and has Tractor as well as Motorcycle in his name. The Panchayat Secretary has given a specific finding that there are all modern amenities in the house of the petitioner. For 40 long years, the petitioner never tried to get his name included in the list of BPL Card holder but the moment an advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Aanganwadi Worker, the petitioner immediately moved an application and got his name included on the very same day and his wife also submitted her application form on the very next day. Thus, it is clear that the solitary intention behind moving an application for inclusion of name of the petitioner in the list of BPL Card holder was to obtain 10 Marks which were reserved for BPL Card holders.
14. The State Government has formulated schemes for upliftment of the Poorer Section of the Society but the persons who are otherwise leading a well settled life with Sarpanch in their family, should always be discouraged to misuse the facilities which are available for the Poorer Section of the Society who are otherwise not in a position to compete with others without any weightage marks.
15. Be that whatever it may be.
16. Both the authorities below have come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not residing below the poverty line. Both the authorities have recorded a concurrent finding of fact and except referring to the report submitted by the Patwari on 25.10.2016, the petitioner has no other document to support that he is residing below the poverty line specifically when it is alleged that the father of the petitioner had 7 W.P. No. 1901/2018 remained Sarpanch for 25 long years and undisputedly, the mother of the petitioner is a Sarpanch as well as the father of the petitioner has Agricultural Lands, Tractor as well as Motorcycle in the family and has a house in the Village itself.
17. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no mistake was committed by the authorities by deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of BPL Card holder.
18. Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE ashish ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2023.07.26 14:25:43 +05'30'