Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
16643/2010 on 24 November, 2010
Author: Nadira Patherya
Bench: Nadira Patherya
010 W.P. 16643 (W) OF 2010
Mr. Soumen Basu...for Zilla Parishad
Mr. Soumen Dasgupta
Ms.Runu Mukherjee
...for State
By this application the petitioner seeks to set aside the final list of
gram panchayat selected under the I.S.G.P. Scheme. The case of the
petitioner is that for purposes of development work a provisional list was
published on 9th February 2010. The second provisional list was also
published in March 2010 and in the third list the name of the petitioner
appeared at serial no. 40 and 29 respectively. Thereafter, objections were
invited and final list was published on 26th April 2010. In the said final list
the petitioner's name was omitted. Hence, the instant application has been
filed and order sought. By order dated 18th August 2010 the scheme was
directed to be given effect to barring one gram panchayat in the district of
Purba Medinipur. The said interim order has been continued. According to
the counsel for the petitioner, the only reason for excluding the name of the
petitioner in the opposition filed by the respondent no.7 is political turmoil
in the concerned gram panchayat. By such turmoil what is meant is the requisition notices issued for removal of Prodhan. All of which started on and from 23rd August 2010. No such turmoil was there in April 2010. Therefore, the exclusion of the petitioner from the final list is unjustified and the said list as it excludes the name of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
Counsel for the respondent no.7 submits that on the basis of the development work undertaken by the panchayat in 2006-2007 the I.S.G.P. programme was introduced in 2009. In the district of Purba Medinipur, 132 gram panchayats were identified for development purposes. The petitioner's name featured amongst the 132 gram panchayats and continued to be included till April 2010 when its name was excluded due to political turmoil in the said gram panchayat. As the project is one for development purposes due to requisition notices issued for removal of Prodhan, the continuance of the development work was not completed. Therefore, the name of the petitioner was excluded.
2Counsel for the State-respondent submits that it has no role to play in the selection of the gram panchayats after formulating the scheme of 2009. As of now all that has to be done is to disburse sums.
Having considered the submissions of the parties as the scheme of 2009 is intended for development of gram panchayats and the name of the petitioner was included not only in the first list but also in the second list, exclusion of its name from the third list cannot be supported for the reasons sought to be given. The only reason for non-inclusion of the petitioner's name is political turmoil, namely, the requisition notices issued for removal of Prodhan. The first of such notice was issued on 23rd August 2010 and thereafter on 14th September 2010. The final list was published much before the said two dates, i.e. on 26th April, 2010. Therefore, between March 2010 and April 2010 there was no political turmoil or notices issued for removal of Prodhan. Therefore, the reason for excluding the name of the petitioner cannot be justified. In fact, none of the parties have been able to produce any document to prove that the Prodhan was removed. In fact, this writ petition has been filed by the gram panchayat through its Prodhan. Therefore, the final list dated 26th April 2010 excluding the name of the petitioner cannot be justified and is accordingly set aside. Another factor for passing such order is that political turmoil as one can understand occurred more prominently in Nandigram and the some of the gram panchayats of both Nandigram-I and Nandigram-II have been included in the final list.
For all the said reasons, this application succeeds and the respondent no.7 is directed to prepare a final list within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that in the event the name of the petitioner is included and money is disbursed to it under the said I.S.G.P. Scheme the moneyes that are spent for development purposes an account be maintained in respect thereof and such statement of account on a quarterly basis be forwarded to the office of the respondent no.7.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Patherya-J)