Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sagar Mal Jain vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 30 May, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6339/2012 Sagar Mal Jain Versus State of Rajasthan and others 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1328/2012 Mahendra Kumar Jain Versus State of Rajasthan and others Date of Order :: 30.5.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya for petitioners. Mr.G.S. Bapna, Advocate General and Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain for State. <><><> REPORTABLE By the Court:
Petitioners are aggrieved against the orders dated 3.4.2012 and 15.12.2011 wherein a recovery of Rs.79,153/- and Rs.3,22,394/- respectively is to be made from them.
It is submitted that petitioners, while working on the post of Gram Sevak-cum-Paden Sachiv had to undertake work under National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'NREGA') in Gram Panchayat, Khanpur, Panchayat Samiti, Nainwa, District Bundi. A special audit and physical verification of the work was undertaken on the instruction of District Collector-cum-District Programme Coordinator, District Bundi. The special audit and physical verification was made pursuant to the direction of the State Government as certain irregularities were shown therein, thus petitioners have been asked to pay amount shown in the impugned order dated 3.4.2012.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as without providing an opportunity of hearing, amount is shown recoverable from petitioners. It is apart from the fact that special audit and physical verification of the work undertaken in NREGA was without a notice to petitioners. Accordingly, impugned order deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid ground alone.
The other argument is in reference to Section 17 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005'). Referring to Section 17 of the Act of 2005, it is submitted that social audit can be conducted only in terms of the Act of 2005. Thus, direction of the State Government for special audit through the Collectors cum - District Programme Coordinators becomes illegal. The State Government or its agencies are not empowered to undertake special audit or physical verification, thus special audit at the instance of the Collector, Bundi becomes illegal.
Other than two grounds narrated above, no other ground has been raised for my consideration.
I have considered the submissions made above and perused the record carefully.
Firstly, I am dealing with second issue i.e. in reference to Section 17 of the Act of 2005. According to learned counsel for petitioners, other than Gram Shabha, nobody is having power or authority to hold audit/special audit. Since a reference of Section 17 of the Act of 2005 has been made, thus same is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
17. (1) The Gram Sabha shall monitor the execution of works within the Gram Panchayat.
(2) The Gram Sabha shall conduct regular social audits of all the projects under the Scheme taken up within the Gram Panchayat.
(3) The Gram Panchayat shall make available all relevant documents including the muster rolls, bills, vouchers, measurement books, copies of sanction orders and other connected books of account and papers to the Gram Sabha for the purpose of conducting the social audit.
Perusal of provision quoted above reveals that regular social audit would be done by Gram Sabha for all works done under Gram Panchayat concerned. The question is as to whether aforesaid provision excludes authority of State or Central Government to allow special audit or inquiry in regard to work of NREGA more so when funds are given by the Government. To address aforesaid issue, it would be relevant to refer few provisions of the Act of 2005. Section 4 of the Act of 2005 enjoins upon the State Government to notify scheme to give effect to provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. The State Government, accordingly, notified a scheme vide Notification dated 13.10.2005, namely, Rajasthan Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Yojna 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). Chapter-6 of the said scheme titled as Quality Control and Evaluation specifically emphasizes for quality control and evaluation. Para 32(2) of the said scheme empowers State Government to monitor physical and financial progress of the scheme in all Districts. Para 32(4) of the said scheme provides for quality audit at the State and district level by external monitors i.e., those who are not directly connected with the implementation of the scheme. Para 34(1) of Chapter-7 of the scheme titled 'Transparency and Accountability' provides for compulsory physical and financial audit of all works under the scheme as directed in Section 23(3) of the Act of 2005. Financial audit obviously includes especial audit. In paras 34(5) & 34(6) of Chapter-7 of the scheme further empowers State Employment Guarantee Council to take expeditious steps to stop serious financial irregularities, frauds, wrong measurements, false entries in Muster Roll and misuse of Government resources. The Chief Minister of the State is Ex-Officio Chairperson of the council. The scheme so introduced by the State Government, thus provides measures to be taken for physical and financial audit to check irregularities etc. The Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India also issued Operational Guidelines-2008 for proper implementation of the MGNREGA. The State Governments have been directed for appropriate steps to prevent irregularities. The Guidelines specifically authorizes State Government to monitor the scheme and for financial audit.
Apart from the aforesaid, even directions were given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Centre For Environment & Food Security Versus Union of India and others Writ Petition (C) No.645 of 2007 on 12th May, 2011. In the case aforesaid, all the State Governments including Rajasthan, were directed to ensure compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. This was to prevent corruption in NREGA. The State Government submitted an affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court pursuant to the order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therein ordered for CBI inquiry in regard to 100 villages of State of Orissa. In view of the above, an order was issued on 17.12.2009 by the State Government for inspection of work executed under NREGA and to conduct a detailed audit. Thus, action in the matter has been taken as per the provisions of law. All these facts are part of the reply given in the writ petition of Ravi Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan and others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11417/2010 and submitted by the parties to decide the present matter. It is even relied by learned counsel for petitioners, who had supplied copy of the reply to the aforesaid writ petition to the Court during the course of arguments. In view of Rajasthan Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Yojna 2006, a scheme framed by the Government and provisions contained in para 32(2), 32(4), 34(1)(5) & (6) give ample powers to the State Government, accordingly, order dated 17.12.2009 was issued. It is pursuant to the aforesaid that the District Collector cum Programme Coordinator, Bundi had directed for inquiry into the matter.
The fact further relevant is the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre For Environment & Food Security (supra). The order was in regard to NREGA wherein directions were given when certain irregularities and corruption in NREGA were pointed by in the petition. One of the directions issued on 16.12.2010 was also in regard to the social audit to be conducted by Gram Sabha, however, it was further directed as under:-
(h) Whether the Union of India or the State Government, in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or otherwise, have conducted any general audit of accounts of the schemes at any level in terms of Section 24 of the Act? If the answers is in the affirmative, then details thereof, particularly, the objections, if any, raised by the Auditors; if any answer is in the negative, then reasons therefor.
(i) Whether the Central Government has issued any directions concerning utilization of funds under NREGA while disbursing the amounts to State of Orissa? Whether these have been complied with by State of Orissa?
(j) Whether the Central Government has received any complaints about working of the schemes, utilization of funds, providing of employment and payment of allowances under the provisions of the Act? If so, what action has been taken in terms of Section 27(2) of the Act? It should be stated with complete statistics and data Directions aforesaid were given in reference to Sections 24 & 27 of the Act of 2005, thus it would be relevant to quote those provisions for ready reference:-
24. (1) The Central Government may, in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, prescribe appropriate arrangements for audits of the accounts of the Schemes at all levels.
(2) The accounts of the Scheme shall be maintained in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government.
27. (1) The Central Government may give such directions as it may consider necessary to the State Government for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on receipt of any complaint regarding the issue or improper utilisation of funds granted under this Act in respect of any Scheme if prima facie satisfied that there is a case, cause an investigation into the complaint made by any agency designated by it and if necessary, order stoppage of release of funds to the Scheme and institute appropriate remedial measures for its proper implementation within a reasonable period of time.
Perusal of the provisions as well as directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals an information if general audit of accounts of the scheme at any level was conducted. This was at the stage when issue of corruption was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that too after filing of the reply by the Central Government and the State of Orissa therein. Relevant paras of the order are quoted hereunder:-
Not satisfied with the replies of the Central Government as well as the State of Orissa, this Court on 14th March, 2011 noticed that there are particularly two aspects to be taken care of at this stage; one is concerned with the corruption in the implementation of NREGA Scheme and the other is concerned with the implementation of the Operational Guidelines issued by the Central Government under Section 27 of the Act. In the case of State of Orissa, it was brought to the notice of the Court that huge amount has been misappropriated and, consequently, the beneficiaries of the NREGA Scheme are deprived of their dues.
It must be noticed at this stage that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (for short the 'CAG') had prepared certain reports in regard to implementation of the schemes framed under the Act. Similar report was prepared by the National Institute for Rural Development (NIRD) after conducting social audits in certain villages of Orissa on request of the Government of Orissa. Both these reports have pointed out the irregularities in implementation of the provisions of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder. These reports have even been accepted by the State Government and it had directed all the Collectors and District Programme Controllers (DPCs) to take necessary follow-up action. They had been instructed to submit exhaustive compliance/action-taken report in relation to the observations made by the CAG and NIRD in their respective reports and to conduct complete verification of all the allegations contained therein.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under while delivering final decision in the aforesaid case:-
The functions of the Central Council have been spelt out in Section 11 while that of the State Councils in Section 12(3). It is a statutory obligation on these Councils to advice the Government on all matters concerning the scheme and its implementation of the State including promotion of widest possible dissemination of information about the scheme made under this Act, establishment of central evaluation and monitoring system etc. In other words, this whole machinery has been set up to ensure smooth and effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. Besides constituting these Councils which are expected to function at higher level, the Legislature has required constitution of bodies and functionaries at the grass root level, i.e. District, intermediary and Gram Panchayat level. In terms of Section 17, the Gram Sabha shall monitor the execution of the work within the Gram Panchayat and there shall be regular social audit of all the projects under the scheme. In terms of Section 19, the State Government is required to make rules and determine appropriate grievance redressal mechanisms at the Block and the District levels for dealing with any complaint by any person in respect of implementation of the scheme. Chapter-V requires establishment of National and State Employment Guarantee Funds and Audit. In other words, these funds are to be created for ensuring the effective implementation of the schemes. Under Section 20(2), the Central Government can credit, by way of grants or loans, such sums of money as the Central Government may consider necessary to the National Fund which will be utilized in such manner and subject to conditions, as may be provided by that Government. The intention of the Legislature is that it wants to the provisions of the Act to be enforced and fix responsibility on the persons causing impediments in its execution. Those who act contrary to the provisions of the Act are liable to conviction and fine under Section 25 which may extend to Rs.1000/-. The Central Government is further empowered to issue directions under Section 27 of the Act for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and has powers to examine any complaint regarding issue or improper utilization of funds granted under this Act in respect of any scheme and to take remedial measures and even to stop release of funds to the scheme in such condition. The provisions of this Act have been given precedence and shall prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or even in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law.
The emphasis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is for proper utilization of the funds apart from implementation of the scheme and to fix responsibility of those persons causing impediments in its execution. The effort seems to be nothing but to eliminate corruption in execution of scheme. In the aforesaid background, a hyper-technical objection cannot prevail if action is taken by the State Government for proper implementation of the Scheme, that too, after framing the scheme in the year 2006 and as per the Guidelines given therein. The effort of the State Government is to see that at all levels proper monitoring of NREGA work is undertaken and if irregularities are committed therein, then to take appropriate action after getting special audit and physical verification. The District Collector has been taken as a Coordinator of the NREGA work at the District level, thus special audit at his level or on his instructions cannot be said to be in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2005. Section 17 of the Act of 2005 only talks about social audit and not for special audit or inspection of the accounts and does not bar for special audit. This is also at the stage when the Hon'ble Apex Court took notice of various irregularities and corruption in implementation of the NREGA, that too, at the stage when reports were called from CAG. The courts should make interpretation of law taking note of the object for which it has been legislated. In the special audit at the instance of the State Government, if irregularities are found therein, then it cannot be ignored by this Court for the reasons given above. Accordingly, I am not convinced with the argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners. In fact, there is no bar on the State Government or for the Coordinator of NREGA to direct for inspection of accounts and physical verification of the work. Such directions are issued for proper implementation of the work and to achieve the goal for which Act of 2005 was brought. The scheme should not be frustrated at the cost of those who indulged in irregularities and corruption.
So far as second argument is concerned, no doubt, it is true that impugned order has been passed for recovery without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand as respondents are under an obligation to follow principles of natural justice before passing adverse orders dated 3.4.2012 and 15.12.2011 against any person. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. However, the respondents are given liberty to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and this judgment will not come in their way for passing fresh order. It goes without saying that while undertaking fresh exercise as per liberty given above, it would be without bias and would be against all persons involved in it.
With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Sunil/PA It is stated that impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 17 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'the NREGA Act') apart from in violation of the principle of natural justice.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that specific audit of NREGA is assigned to Gram Sabha as per Section 17 of the NREGA Act. However, the present matter is one where audit has been made by the Government without authority of law. Based on the aforesaid audit, recovery against the petitioners has been made even without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. In similar matters, this Court has granted interim order and few matters were decided finally and order of recovery has been set aside though liberty is given to the respondent Government to pass afresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Thus, these writ petition may accordingly be allowed.
Learned Advocate General, Mr. G.S. Bapana, on the other submits that the impugned order of recovery has been passed after finding irregularities and illegalities in the NREGA Scheme. The Government with an intention to stop the corruption in the NREGA has decided to take up the matter for inquiry to determine as to whether amount allotted in NREGA is utilized for the purpose of it is meant. Pursuant to the order of the State government, matters were inquired wherein defaults were found, therefore, an order of recovery was issued. If the order of recovery is stayed on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, respondent Government given liberty to pass afresh order after affording opportunity of hearing.
So far as Section 17 of the Act is concerned, it provides for specific audit. However, present matter is not falling under this section. Section 17 of the Act is meant for monitoring the education work within the Gram Panchayat and for its regular audit by Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha no doubt monitoring the education work and is having an authority to make regular social audit, but Section 17 of the Act does not power for inquiry by the authority who are providing even in NREGA. This is more so when complaints relating to corruption therein are received.
Learned Advocate General submits that on technicalities corruption may not be allowed to prevail in any of the Scheme like the NREGA, which has been introduced with an object for generating in the Village area and other relevant issues. To maintain the sanctity of the NREGA, the Government should not be made powerless to look into the matter if complaints of corruption are received. They are not monitoring the work of NREGA as it has been done by the Gram Sabha but they can inquire into the matter to find out as to what work has been carried out or not and to further look into the issues of irregularities and corruptions. The case in hand is of the same nature where after inquiry not only irregularities were found in the work rather at time even the works are not performed, yet amounts were withdrawn, thus keeping in mind the aforesaid, the Government of Rajasthan issued necessary direction to make audit which is not different than the social audit. In fact, a specific terms has been used though it relates to the inquiry to be conducted in the matter of complaints. It was looking to the fact that even Gram Sabha worked with and under the Gram Panchayat against whom complaints are made, thus inquiry of the nature required to remove the corruption from the NREGA Scheme, the Government bona-fidely issued the order which may not be interfered.
I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the recored carefully.
First argument is in reference to Section 17 of the Act, thus it would be gainful to quote the said provisions:-
17. (1) The Gram Sabha shall monitor the execution of works within the Gram Panchayat.
(2) The Gram Sabha shall conduct regular social audits of all the projects under the Scheme taken up within the Gram Panchayat.
(3) The Gram Panchayat shall make available all relevant documents including the muster rolls, bills, vouchers, measurement books, copies of sanction orders and other connected books of account and papers to the Gram Sabha for the purpose of conducting the social audit.
Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that monitoring of Gram Panchayat work would be by Gram Sabha coupled with social audit. A detailed judgment on the aforesaid issue was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Centre for Environment & Food Security Versus Union of India and others Writ Petition (C) No.645 of 2007 decided on 12.5.2011. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is with regard to the NREGA and Scheme framed thereunder. It was noticed that to ensure enhancement of livelihood and security of households in the rural area of the country, guaranteed based scheme was introduced by the Government of India. The authority appointed under the Act are responsible to ensure proper utilization of the funds released by the Union of India for implementation of the Scheme. The Hon'ble Apex Court issued directions regarding proper implementation of the Scheme and for which Central Government as well as State Governments were given direction to file affidavit. The Hon'ble Apex Court notices discrepancies in implementation of the provisions of the Act, thus a detailed order was passed on 16.12.2010. The direction aforesaid was given to ensure proper and equitable functioning of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder. It was after noticing discrepancies of the statutory mandate and patent lacuna in implementation of the schemes. The Hon'ble Apex Court thus issued following directions on 16.12.2010, which are quoted hereunder:-
Thus, we are compelled to issue the following directions for strict compliance by the concerned authorities:
1. The compliance report shall be filled in the form of affidavit which shall be sworn by the Additional Secretary, in-charge for compliance of the provisions of the Act in the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi and the Chief Secretary, State of Orissa within three weeks from today.
2. The instances and figures referred to in the survey report submitted by the petitioner shall be specifically dealt with in that affidavit.
3. The affidavit should be filed positively within the stipulated time directed in this order and further we call upon both the Union of India and the State Government to show cause as to why there should not be a direction to the CBI to investigate this matter in accordance with law.
We also issue the direction that affidavits to be filled by the respective authorities shall, inter alia, but specifically answer the following points:
(a) What is the extent of funds released by the Union of India to the State of Orissa for implementation of the schemes under the provisions of the Act for each of the year between 2006 to 2010?
(b) To what extent and for what projects, the released funds have been utilized? Whether state of Orissa has given to the Central Government the requisite certificate of utilization?
(c) Findings to be recorded whether any amount earmarked for any of the schemes under NREGA has been diverted to any other Head of Account including revenue account by State of Orissa.
(d) How many applicants, of how many households, have been actually employed and have been paid allowances under the provisions of the Act?
(e) The figures in terms of the above directions shall be provided for the period from 2006 to 2010.
(f) Whether any social audit of the projects under the Gram Sabha has been conducted in terms of Section 17(2)? If yes, its detailed findings for the above mentioned period.
(g) Whether all the authorities/officers/ officials, from the higher levels in the Central Government or State Governments to the grass-root levels at District, intermediary and Panchayats, to ensure effective implementation of the schemes under the Act have been appointed? If no, reasons therefor.
(h) Whether the Union of India or the State Government, in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or otherwise, have conducted any general audit of accounts of the schemes at any level in terms of Section 24 of the Act? If the answers is in the affirmative, then details thereof, particularly, the objections, if any, raised by the Auditors; if any answer is in the negative, then reasons therefor.
(i) Whether the Central Government has issued any directions concerning utilization of funds under NREGA while disbursing the amounts to State of Orissa? Whether these have been complied with by State of Orissa?
(j) Whether the Central Government has received any complaints about working of the schemes, utilization of funds, providing of employment and payment of allowances under the provisions of the Act? If so, what action has been taken in terms of Section 27(2) of the Act? It should be stated with complete statistics and data.
(k) Whether the Central Government has received any complaints about working of the schemes, utilization of funds, providing of employment and payment of allowances under the provisions of the Act? If so, what action has been taken in terms of Section 27(2) of the Act? It should be stated with complete statistics and data.
(k) Whether the Union of India or the State of Orissa have, till date, found even a single official/functionary guilty of contravention in terms of Section 25 of the Act and whether any complaint has been filed in any Court of competent jurisdiction? If so, the result thereof.
(l) The contents and the background of the complaints received and referred in 'Annexure-R1' to the affidavit filed by the Union of India should be stated precisely. Why the enquiry reports as referred to in 'Annexure-R1' to the Affidavit of the Union of India of July 2008, no final reports have been prepared and submitted before this Court till date. Further, it shall also be stated as to why the findings of the interim reports referred in the said affidavit have not been placed before this Court. A complete summary thereof shall be annexed to the Affidavit.
Sub-para (f) calls for details as to whether any social audit of the projects under the Gram Sabha has been conducted in terms of Section 17(2) and calls for details findings for the above mentioned period. Aforesaid directions were given after noticing contraventions of Section 25 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court had notices that no proper audit has been conducted in terms of Section 24 of the Act and utilization of funds was proper. The satisfactory replies were not given by the Central Government as well as State Government therein. It was also noticed that one is concerned with the corruption in the implementation of NREGA Scheme. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has also prepared certain reports regarding implementation of the Scheme framed under the Act and similar report was prepared by the other agencies as well. It was at the instance of State of Orissa so as NREGA Scheme can be implemented with the spirit the Act was introduced. It is when corruption therein was noticed. The letter dated 4th of April, 2011 of the Director, CBI investigating the matter was also taken note of therein though certain handicapped were shown therein by the CBI. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however, noticed that wide powers of investigation are vested in the CBI under the 1946 and taking note of Section 27(2), Central Government may, on receipt of any complaint regarding the issue of improper utilization of funds granted under the Act can cause an investigation in to the complaint by any agency designated by it thereby Central Government has full power to refer the matter to CBI for investigation. If direction aforesaid is taken note of vis-a-vis argument of the petitioner in reference to Section 17 of the Act, it comes out that for the welfare of the State and to remove the corruption, inquiry/investigation at the level of proper authorities is not powered, rather is a need of proper implementation of the aforesaid Scheme. The Hon'ble Apex Court accordingly issued directions to the CBI to conduct proper and fair investigation and for as a test gives 100 villages in six districts of Orissa were ordered to be taken in reference to the notification issued in that regard. The CAG report so as the report of NIRD was also considered therein. Looking to the detailed directions given in the judgment in reference by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any illegality if the State of Rajasthan has issued orders for inquiry though loosely word 'audit' was used but taking note of the intention if the matter pertaining to proper implementation of the NREGA Scheme is undertaken coupled with the report of irregularities and corruptions therein followed by inquiry, there is nothing wrong in the action of the State Government. Accordingly, argument in reference to Section 17 cannot be accepted to say that other than Gram Sabha, no agency can be made investigation in the matter if what would be so than the Hon'ble Apex Court would not have issued direction to the CBI to make investigation in regard allegation of corruption in NREGA and thereby giving direction to first investigate work of 100 villages in State of Orissa.
In view of the aforesaid, first argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted as audit conducted by the State Government is not a social audit but an inquiry into the matter to see whether irregularities or corruptions have been committed in implementation of the NREGA Scheme.
So far as the second argument is concerned, no doubt impugned order has been passed for recovery without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand as respondents are under obligation to apply the principle of natural justice before passing adverse order against any person. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. However, the respondents are given liberty to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and then this judgment will not come in their way for passing afresh order. It goes without saying that while undertaking fresh exercise as per liberty given above, it would be without bias and would be against all persons involved in the irregularities and corruptions.
With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Sunil/PA All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
(Sunil Solanki) P.A.