Gauhati High Court
Ainul Hoque vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2014
Author: Indira Shah
Bench: Indira Shah
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PIL 82 of 2009
Ainul Hoque,
Son of Late Joynal Abedin,
Resident of Nayapara, Abhyapuri Town,
Ward No. IV, P.O. Abhyapuri, Dist.- Bongaigaon,
Assam.
...........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Rural Development (Department of Rural Development)
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural
Development Department, Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
3. The Commissioner of Panchayat and Rural Development
Department, Assam, Juripar, Guwahati-37.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon, P.O. & Dist.-
Bongaigaon, Assam.
5. The Project Director of DRDA, Bongaigaon, P.O. & Dist-
Bongaigaon, Assam.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Bongaigaon Zilla Parishad,
PO & Dist.- Bongaigaon, Assam.
7. The Block Development Officer, Srijangram
Development Block, Srijangram, Dist.- Bongaigaon,
Assam.
8. The Secretary of the Kacharipally Gaon Panchayat,
Kacharipally.
9. The President of the Kacharipally Gaon Panchayat,
Kacharipally.
PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 1 of 11
10. The Secretary of the Srijangram Gaon Panchayat,
Srijangram.
11. The President of the Srijangram Gaon Panchayat,
Srijangram.
12. The Secretary of the Deohati Gaon Panchayat, Deohati.
13. The President of tdhe Deohati Gaon Panchayat,
Dedohati.
14. The Secretary of the Ambari Gaon Panchayat, Ambari.
15. The President of the Ambari Gaon Panchayat, Ambari.
16. The Secretary of the Jopia Gaon Panchayat, Jopia.
17. The President of the Jopia Gaon Panchayat, Jopia.
18. The Secretary of the Numberpara Chakla Gaon
Panchayat.
19. The President of the Numberpara Chakla Gaon
Panchayat.
20. The Secretary of the Kokila Gaon Panchayat, Kokila.
21. The President of the Kokila Gaon Panchayat, Kokila.
22. The Secretary of the Goalpara Gaon Panchayat,
Goalpara.
23. The President of the Goalpara Gaon Panchayat,
Goalpara.
PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 2 of 11
24. The Secretary of the Balarchara Matraghola Gaon
Panchayat.
25. The President of the Balarchara Matraghola Gaon
Panchayat.
26. The Secretary of the Kirtanpara Gaon Panchayat.
27. The President of the Kirtanpara Gaon Panchayat.
28. The Secretary of the North Salmara Gaon Panchayat.
29. The President of the North Salmara Gaon Panchayat.
30. The Secretary of the Kakoijana Gaon Panchayat.
31. The President of the Kakoijana Gaon Panchayat.
32. The Secretary of the Chakrabham Gaon Panchayat.
33. The President of the Chakrabham Gaon Panchayat.
Sl. No. 8 to 32 are C/o. the Block Development Officer,
Srijangram, District- Barpeta, Assam.
..........Respondents
For the petitioners : Mr. R. Ali. Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. B.J. Talukdar, GA, Assam,
Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Adv.
PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 3 of 11
BCEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
THE HON'BLE DR. (MRS) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH
Date of hearing & Judgement: 01/04/2014
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
B.K. Sharma, J
1. This writ petition in the form of PIL has been filed alleging improper implementation of the schemes namely, Indira Awas Yojna (IAY) ; Pradhan Manti Gramodaya Yojna (PMGY) and Sampoorna Grammen Rozgar Yojna (SGRY). The petitioner has also alleged misappropriation of fund allotted for proper implementation of the said schemes.
2. As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner is a social worker and has been rendering services to the poor and helpless persons of the society in the district of Bongaigaon. Referring to the provisions of the aforesaid schemes, the petitioner has stated about the procedure and methodology to be followed for proper implementation of the schemes.
3. The present proceeding is concerned with the implementation of the schemes in Srijangram Development Block in the district of Bongaigaoni. Under the said block, there are 13 Gaon Panchayats. According to the petitioner, it is the duty of the Gram Sabha of the Gaon Panchayat to prepare the list of beneficiaries on the basis of BPL card etc. but no such list had been prepared properly. Women were not selected and no construction of dwelling house had been carried out. According to the petitioner, on enquiry, he came to know that the official respondents in collusion with the Panchayat authorities, without selecting the beneficiaries in terms of the guidelines, distributed lumpsum amount to some interested PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 4 of 11 persons in the name of dwelling houses and misappropriated the major share without going for any construction of houses.
4. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has referred to his application filed under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information about the beneficiaries of PMGY Housing scheme, utilization certificate, money receipt, voucher and bills, beneficiaries under IAY, utilization certificates etc. However, by Annexure-4 series letters dated 01/08/2008, 02/02/20098, 16/06/2009, 16/07/2009 and 22/07/2009, the petitioner was informed about non-availability of some of the documents in the office. It is on that basis the petitioner has asserted that had there been proper implementation of the schemes as per the formulated guidelines, the documents pertaining to the same would have been available in the office. The petitioner has alleged violation of the guidelines holding the field. It has also been alleged that no records have been maintained in respect of the implementation of the schemes. Attributing fault on the part of the State Government, it has also been stated that periodical reports ought to have been called for and submitted to the concerned authorities.
5. It is with the above statements in the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for proper implementation of the aforesaid schemes and to issue direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 to cause an enquiry regarding the anomalies and improper implementation of the schemes.
6. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The Central Govt. has also filed its affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the Project Director, DRDA, Bongaigaon, the aforesaid allegations made in the writ petition have been denied. It has been stated that the list of beneficiaries under IAY and PMGY had been prepared as per prescribed guidelines. It has also been stated that the DRDA, Bongaigaon decided the number of houses to be constructed/upgraded during a financial year on the basis of PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 5 of 11 allocation made and following which the Gram Sabha had selected the list, keeping in view the relevant guidelines. Along with the counter affidavit, the list of PMGY and IAY beneficiaries for different financial years from 2001-02 to 2006-07 have also been enclosed. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated thus :-
"Further, the statements of the petitioner that "no construction of dwelling houses has been made" is not correct and far from the truth considering the following aspects :-
1. The construction of dwelling houses in question dates back to the period 2001-06 but no complaint regarding anomaly in construction works from any other source has been received or noticed by the Respondent No. 5 so far.
2. The statements of a good number of beneficiaries under IAY and PMGY (Annexure 16 to Annexure 29) certifying that the construction of houses were completed in all respects and allotted amount was fully utilized would exemplify the fact that the dwelling houses of those beneficiaries wer constructed.
Further, there is no such report/complaint available in the office of Respondent No. 5 to the effect that the lists of beneficiaries were anomalous and that any official was involved in the distribution of any amount to any interested person in collusion with the Panchayat Authorities. As such, it is stated that the statement of the petitioner is not correct and the allegations are unfounded. The Respondent No. 5 is also not aware of any complaint lodged earlier to the State Respondents in this regard."
7. As regards the non-furnishing of documents to the petitioner, it has been stated in the affidavit that some of the documents pertaining to the PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 6 of 11 period 2001-06 were not readily available in the office of the BDO, Srijangram Development Block requiring some more time for collection and detection of those documents. As per the report furnished by the Block Development Officer, after the reply furnished to the petitioner, some more documents could have been traced out and had also been furnished to the petitioner. As regards the release of the allocated fund under the schemes it has been stated that the funds have been released and utilized. It has been denied that there was any misappropriation of fund.
8. Further narrating the steps taken for implementation of the schemes it has been stated that in some cases, the DRDA, Bongaigaon had released the fund to the BDO fully in one installment enabling the beneficiaries to construct the dwelling houses smoothly and within the time bound period and within the sanctioned amount. In case of release of funds in installments, the subsequent installments had been released only on receipt of the utilization certificate of the earlier installments.
9. The Block Development Officer, Srijangram Development Block has also filed counter affidavit denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the affidavit, the fact relating to utilization of the fund for proper implementation of the schemes have been stated. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 i.e. the Union Government in the Ministry of Rural Development, it has been stated that the programmes of the Ministry are implemented by the State Government/DRDA as per the programmes /guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time. It has also been stated that the physical and financial performance reports were submitted by the implementing agencies including the DRDA, Bongaigaon in respect of the concerned schemes. It has further been stated that such reports had been furnished by the implementing agencies during PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 7 of 11 the period from 2001-02 and 2005-06. As per this affidavit, the schemes were implemented in compliance with the related guidelines.
10. Although the aforesaid affidavits had been filed on 18/12/2009 and 02/04/2013 but till date the petitioner has not responded to the same by filing any reply affidavit.
11. Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the schemes are required to be implemented as per the laid down guidelines, the official respondents could not have deviated from the same. Referring to the replies furnished to the petitioner in response to his RTI application, he submits that those replies would reveal the real state of affairs, inasmuch as, had the claims been implemented properly, the documents related to the same would have been available rightly in the office.
12. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel on the other hand submits that the writ petition being structured on some vague and indefinite statements alleging improper implementation of the schemes, no indulgence is called for to those statements without there being any disclosure of material facts. Referring to the records that has been produced by him, he submits that on perusal of the same it would be revealed that the schemes were implemented in accordance with the guidelines. Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 8 to 33 submits that in absence of any allegation made against the said respondents, it is not possible to show any response to vague and indefinite allegations. He further submits that as has been revealed in the counter affidavits filed by the official respondents, the related schemes having been implemented as per the formulated guidelines, the PIL is mis-directed.
13. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the entire materials on record including the records produced by Mr. B.J. Talukdar, State Counsel. PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 8 of 11 Be it stated here that in terms of the order passed on 28/11/2013, the learned State Counsel was to file report as mentioned in the letter dated 16/03/2013 that was produced before the Court. The report having not been produced, on the subsequent dates for hearing of the matter, further time was allowed and lastly when the matter was taken up on 20/03/2014, the respondents were directed to file the report. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel has produced the record file containing the report relating to the implementation of the schemes. For a ready reference, the document/ report containing in the file is indicated below :-
i. Proposal for release of central share under
SGRY (II stream).
ii. UC under SGRY (II stream) for the year 2002-
03.
iii. UC of food grains SGRY (II steam) for the year 2003-04.
iv. UC SGRY (II stream) for the year 2003-04.
v. UC of food grains SGRY (II steam) for the year
2003-04.
vi. Audit Report SGRY II stream, 2002-03.
vii. Proposal for release of Central share under
EAS, 2001-02.
viii. UC under EAS for the year 2000-01.
ix. UC under EAS for the year 2001-02.
x. UC of 60% of the available funds in 2001-02
under JGSY.
xi. UC for the year 2000-01 under JGSY.
xii. UC under JGSY (JRY) 2001-02.
xiii. Proposal for release of Central Share under
SGRY (1st Stream), 2003-04.
xiv. UC under SGRY, 2003-04.
xv. UC of 60% of the available funds IAY for the
year 2001-02.
xvi. UC of 60% of (JGSY) the available funds in
2001-02.
PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 9 of 11
xvii. UC of 60% of (PMGY) the available funds in
2001-02.
xviii. UC of 60% of (EAS) the available funds in 2001-
02.
xix. MPR on SGRY-1st stream Nov/2004-05.
xx. MPR on SGRY-II stream Nov/2004-05.
xxi. MPR on SGRY, Jan/2005.
xxii. MPR on SGRY, Feb/2005.
xxiii. Report on food grains under SGRY for the year
2005 on 16-03-2006.
xxiv. Report on food grains under SGRY for the yer
2005 on 13-03-2006.
xxv. MPR under SGRY for March, 2005-06.
xxvi. MPR on SGRY for the month of March, 2006."
14. By filing the instant PIL on 27/10/2009, the petitioner said to be a social worker questioned the implementation of the schemes pertaining to the period from 2002 to 2006. Thus it was after more than 3 (three) years of the implementation of the schemes, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court alleging anomalies in implementation of the schemes. Be that as it may, the respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the allegations made in the writ petition by filing their affidavits to which the petitioner has not shown any response by filing any reply affidavit.
15. As to what is the grievances raised in the writ petition have been noted above. The whole thrust of the petitioner to substantiate the allegation of improper implementation of the schemes is in paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition. While in paragraph 6, the petitioner has stated about improper implementation of the schemes, in paragraph 7 he has referred to the replies furnished to him in response to his RTI applications. In paragraph 9 and 10 he has stated about misappropriation of funds and non-furnishing of the utilization certificate. In paragraph 11, the statement made is that the State Government did not take any step to PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 10 of 11 obtain reports etc relating to implementation of the schemes. We have very carefully perused the statements made in the said paragraphs. There is absolutely no manner of doubt that the allegations made in the said paragraphs like disclosure of material particulars. Needless to say that while entertaining a PIL this Court cannot make a roving enquiry in absence of non-disclosure of any material particulars.
16. Irrespective of the aforesaid position, we have considered the matter in reference to the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit and also the records/report produced by Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel. On perusal of the same, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion that there was improper implementation of the schemes and that there was misappropriation of funds. In the writ petition, except the aforesaid vague and indefinite statements, the petitioner has also not named any particular officer/beneficiary of the scheme and alleged any malafide against them.
17. Above being the position, we are not inclined to order for any enquiry to be conducted in respect of the implementation of the schemes as has been prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Sukhamay
PIL 82 of 2009-oral dt. 01-04/14-DB Page 11 of 11