Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagrat Adivasi Dalit Sangathan Thru. ... vs Shri Radhe Shyam Julania (Ias) / Shri P. ... on 27 January, 2017
1
Contempt Case No.595/2016
27.01.2017
Shri A.K. Chitale, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Amit Pardeshi, learned counsel along with petitioner
Ms. Madhuri Krishnaswami.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned counsel for
respondents No.1 & 3.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
They are heard.
ORDER
1. This Court by order dated 18.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3435/2015 directed the respondents to provide rehabilitation grant at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per family for the project affected persons, according to list of 235 families filed by the petitioner after due verification by the respondents in the writ petition. Paragraph No.53 of the order dated 18.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3435/2015 reads, as under: -
"53. The petitioner has filed a list of affected persons as well as photographs of 235 families of the tribes along with the writ petition in which the family members, their houses and names are visible. At present, we accept this list of affected families for consideration of their cases for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement, however, the Grievances Redressal Authority shall consider the applications of the persons from this list only and decide in accordance with law. Punarvas Niti, 2002 provides rehabilitation grant 2 @ Rs.11,000/- per family but, looking to passes of time and price index, the amount of Rs.11,000/- is not adequate, therefore, we direct the State Government to provide rehabilitation grant @ Rs.50,000/- per family for the project affected persons according to list of 235 families filed by the petitioner after due verification by the respondents. Adult son would be treated as separate family whether married or unmarried. Because due to mansoon season, they are not in a position to cultivate their land and earn livelihood, therefore, aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of order after due verification. Any amount paid by the State Government under any head to these families would be adjusted in the amount of Rs.50,000/- and the balance amount would be paid."
2. Against the aforesaid order, Special Leave Petition No.25105/2016 has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which has been dismissed by order dated 05.01.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed paragraph No.53 of the order passed by this Court and has also clarified that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per family, as determined by the impugned order dated 18th July, 2016, shall be deemed to be an ad hoc compensation as an interim measure, so as to render immediate financial assistance to the affected families.
3. In respect of constitution of Grievance Redressal Committee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the State Government shall constitute three Grievances 3 Redressal Committees within a period of two weeks from the date of the order and if the ad hoc compensation determined in the impugned judgment has not been released to the affected families, the same shall be released to them, within two weeks from the date of receipt of order dated 05.01.2017.
4. On 16.01.2017, when the matter was listed for consideration of contempt case, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for some time, so that necessary compliance be made.
5. In respect of knowledge about the order passed by the Supreme Court, an affidavit has been filed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Circle Khargone, that he has not received certified copy of the order dated 05.01.2017. During the course of arguments, Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 has supplied us photocopy of the order. In paragraph No.3 of the affidavit of the Superintending Engineer has very respectfully submitted that compliance would be done within two weeks.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, on 16.01.2017 we granted ten days time to comply with the order and submit compliance report supported with the affidavit of respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
7. Today, affidavit of respondent No.1 Shri Pankaj 4 Agrawal, Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, State of MP along with affidavit of respondent No.3 Shri Ashok Verma, Collector Khargone has been filed.
8. As per their affidavit, they have not constituted Grievance Redressal Committees, nor amount of interim / ad hoc compensation has been paid to 235 affected families, as per paragraph No.53 of the order.
9. Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 has submitted that total in Khargone and Barwani Districts, compensation has been awarded to 142 eligible affected persons at Khargone and 40 eligible affected persons at Barwani and for remaining 62 persons, the same will be paid within three working days.
10. Counter affidavit has been filed stating that no bank account has been opened nor the Collector, Khargone is taking any appropriate steps to open the bank accounts forthwith. He also submitted that Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank refused to accept the application for opening of account of 38 persons and submitted that even if we treat that for the first time, respondents No.1 and 3 came to know about the order dated 16.01.2017 passed in the present contempt case, then also, they have to comply the same within a period of fifteen days. The period of fifteen days is going to 5 expire on 31.01.2017, and therefore, we direct respondents No.1 and 3 to comply with the order of this Court as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, with a further direction to comply with the same on or before 31.01.2017 and submit compliance report on 01.02.2017 by filing their detail affidavit; failing which, show cause notice will be issued to them as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them and all other erring officers, who are responsible for disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
11. List the matter on 01.02.2017.
C. c. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
rcp