Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 408 (GAU)

Tako Changriang v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2005-05-26

H.N.SARMA, I.A.ANSARI

body2005
JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. By this public interest litigation petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has ventilated the grievances of allegedly genuine fire victims of Sangram and Nyapin Circles of the Lower Subansiri District of Arunachal Pradesh and has sought for enforcement of the fundamental rights of fire victims who, as alleged, due to their socio economic constrain are unable to approach this Court in their present capacity. The petitioner is stated to be a social activist and is involved in various socio-political activities of Nyapin town and was also the President of All Arunachal Pradesh Students' Union during the period 1982-84 and hold other such port folios. 2. The case of the petitioner inter alia is that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh there is a special fund earmarked for rendering relief to the victims of natural calamities. Whenever such natural calamities take place, the victims are rendered relief by the Government by providing them economic packages from the said special fund. During the period 1999-00, as per the police verification reports dated 10.9.1999 and 15.9.1999 submitted by Officer-in-charge, Sangram Police Station, there were two major incidents of fire. One was reported to have taken place on the night of 14/15th July, at Nibi village, wherein four residential houses and two granaries were gutted. The other incident was alleged to have taken place on 14.8.1999 at about 19.00 hours in the area of Sangram Township wherein four residential houses were gutted. The occurrence was stated to be duly verified by the police and reports to that effect were submitted as stated above. It is also alleged that the petitioner could learn that the Circle Officer of Sangram vide his letter No. SGM/Relief/99-2000 submitted the loss account of fire accident dated 14.8.1999 of Sangram Township of Sangram Circle to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri but the petitioner could not get hold of its enclosures as contained with the said letter. It has been submitted that the number of genuine fire victims in the Sangram and Nyapin Circle of Lower Subansiri District cannot be more than one dozen. 3. Government of Arunachal Pradesh vides Order No. DR/Relief-08/ 2000-2001 dated 23.10.2000 accorded sanction of Rs. It has been submitted that the number of genuine fire victims in the Sangram and Nyapin Circle of Lower Subansiri District cannot be more than one dozen. 3. Government of Arunachal Pradesh vides Order No. DR/Relief-08/ 2000-2001 dated 23.10.2000 accorded sanction of Rs. 11,16,000 for disbursal amongst 1395 victims of fire accidents stated to have occurred during the year 1999-00 under Nyapin Circle which was issued by the Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and by the said order, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District was requested to disburse the relief amount to the aforesaid 1395 members of fire victims whose names were included in the list enclosed with the order. By another order of the same date, the Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,91,200/- for disbursal amongst 239 victims of fire accidents under Sangram Circle during the year 1999-00. Names of 100 fire victims were incorporated in the list enclosed with the order. It is stated that the said list also contained 50 names of fire victims of the Leel Village, which was also prepared on the basis of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro dated 11.4.2000. 33 names of fire victims contained in the said list were from Hiba Village, whereas 45 names were from Cheki Village and 9 names were from Sangram village. 4. The allegation of the petitioner is that the list enclosed with the order dated 23.10.2000 issued by the Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation is a manufactured one and the names contained therein are non-existent and the sanctioned amounts have been misappropriated by the respondents in collusion with other important, public functionaries . 5. On coming to know about the aforesaid illegality, the village Headmen of the village Sangram and Nyapin Circles submitted representation before the authorities bringing to their notice to the real fact. Such a complaint was submitted to the said Secretary by the village Headman of Sangram Town vide his letter dated 1.11.2000, wherein the names of some of the genuine fire victims were disclosed who allegedly did not get any such compensation in spite of their entitlement. The said Headman also wrote a letter dated 6.11.2000 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro stating that he himself was one of the fire victims but no relief was provided to him and by preparing false bills the relief meant for genuine fire victims were misappropriated. The said Headman also wrote a letter dated 6.11.2000 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro stating that he himself was one of the fire victims but no relief was provided to him and by preparing false bills the relief meant for genuine fire victims were misappropriated. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has filed this public interest litigation inter alia praying for causing necessary investigation into the irregularities and to direct the State Government to take adequate steps to find out the names of genuine fire victims by providing adequate relief. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District as well as by the respondent No. 5 denying the allegations made in the writ petition. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No. 4 it is inter alia pleaded that for providing relief and rehabilitation of victims of natural calamities 3 committees are constituted, viz., Circle Level Relief Committee (CLRC), District Level Relief Committee (DLRC) and State Level Steering Committee (SLSC). The Circle Level Relief Committee is headed by the Circle Officer/Block Development Officer who takes up activities to work out the assessment of actual damage in the field and the immediate relief necessary for the victims and prepare a statement showing the quantum of relief sought to be released from the Government. The District Level Relief Committee is headed by Deputy Commissioner with other officers as members who are engaged in development and social activities of the locality. These members are alike the Executive Engineer (P.H.E.), District Medical Officer, District Agricultural Officer, District Horticulture Officer, etc. and the function of the said Committee is to scrutinise the various demands from the respective Circle Level Relief Committee and thereafter the final estimates are prepared by the District Level Relief Committee. The statements of the Committee and the nature of relief sought for are recorded and forwarded to the Government and if the State Level Steering Committee is of the opinion that the recommendation made by the District Level Relief Committee is appropriate, the Government sanctions the demand and the sanctioned amount is sent to the District Level Relief Committee. The State Level Steering Committee is headed by the Chief Secretary with other members including the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation), Director (Relief and Rehabilitation), Commissioner (Finance), etc. The State Level Steering Committee is headed by the Chief Secretary with other members including the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation), Director (Relief and Rehabilitation), Commissioner (Finance), etc. This Committee finally scrutinises and approves the proposals received from the District Level Relief Committee when the Government refers the matter to the State Level Steering Committee. 7. It is the further case of the respondents that after getting information of the natural calamity like fire from the villages, or from the Government functionary stationed in the village, the Circle Level Relief Committee acts promptly and sends immediate relief and prepare the list of victims and quantum of the damage and submit before the District Level Relief Committee. Since Lower Subansiri is one of the largest districts of the state and some areas are so remote and backward that it takes many days to reach there on foot, it becomes difficult to have photographic evidence in all cases of such calamity. It is also stated that the presence of police in the district is also extremely thin. One single police station caters to hundreds of the villages, which are remotely situated and accordingly, in most of the cases as the report of the calamity from police department does not reach the administration has to rely upon message from villagers only. But in certain cases police reports and photographic evidence of fire accidents in Lower Subansiri District during 1999-00 have been recorded. It is also stated that on the basis of the report furnished by the villagers and in some cases by police functionaries the concerned Circle Officer with the assistance of the local committee rendered immediate relief as per their capability and informed the Deputy Commissioner regarding the fire accident and forwarded the estimates made by them to the Deputy Commissioner. The Circle Officer also collected the names of the victims and sent the list to the Deputy Commissioner as per decision adopted by the Circle Level Relief Committee. On receipt of the decision of the Circle Level Relief Committee, a meeting of the District Level Relief Committee was convened on 30.7.1999, 5.11.1999 and 23.2.2000 and the Committee having found that number of victims and the quantum is towards higher side, the estimates sent by the Circle Level Relief Committee returned back to the respective Circle Officers to re-check and re-submit the estimates. It is also stated that enquiry in every village regarding calamities is not possible as it would cause inordinate delay in paying the compensation and ultimately the opinion of the Circle Level Relief Committee was accepted. After receipt the estimates forwarded by Circle Level Relief Committee for three times, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the decisions of the District Level Relief Committee to the Director, Relief and Rehabilitation for necessary sanction to be made to the fire victims as recommended by him. Thereafter, on verifications and corrections made on the basis of actual findings by the Circle Level Relief Committee and in turn by the District Level Relief Committee, the Director Relief and Rehabilitation issued cheque for an amount of Rs. 11,16,000 and forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for necessary disbursement to the victims. The said amounts were promptly handed over to the Circle Officer, Sangram and Nyapin Circles by the Deputy Commissioner for payment to the victims. 8. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the name of the Gaonbura of Sangram Township was forwarded by the Circle Level Relief Committee and was also approved by the District Level Relief Committee, which was in turn forwarded to the Director (Rehabilitation and Settlement). But in the approved list his name was-not shown by mistake which is stated to be a human error and process was being taken to issue necessary relief to the said Gaonburah. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has also been stated that there are innumerable cases of forged relief estimates submitted to the administration by the public and Local public indulge into forging the signature of all members of Circle Level Relief Committee and District Level Relief Committee on the fake relief estimates and somehow manage to submit the estimates to different levels and accordingly the task of the District Level Relief Committee increases manifold and it becomes virtually impossible for a human being to find out the true estimates. On such verification in the year 1999-00 itself thousands of such forged estimates were rejected. The allegation that there are only 10 victims of fire accident during 1990-00 was denied and it is also denied that two incidents of fire took place in 1999-00 in the said district. It is also stated that the amount of Rs. 11,16,000 and Rs. 1,91,200 were properly distributed amongst the fire victims. 9. The allegation that there are only 10 victims of fire accident during 1990-00 was denied and it is also denied that two incidents of fire took place in 1999-00 in the said district. It is also stated that the amount of Rs. 11,16,000 and Rs. 1,91,200 were properly distributed amongst the fire victims. 9. The respondent No. 5 who is the member of Legislative Assembly from 19 Nyapin Assembly Constituency has also filed separate and independent affidavit in opposition denying the contentions made by the petitioner. Apart from reiterating the facts what has been stated by the respondent No. 4 in his affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 5 further pleaded that at Para 12 of the affidavit as follows : That the deponent totally denies the statements made in Para 3 of the petition in as much as only on personal interest the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble court. In this context it is for matter of record that the petitioner has contested in the last General Assembly Election from Nyapin Assembly Constituency and was defeated. Now this deponent is the MLA of the areas and the petitioner it seem has ill motive to damage my good reputation as a public servant by leaving changes against me and the other respondent, the petitioner is rather trying to get political mileage and public sympathy from the people. It may be mentioned that the Goan Burah Shri Tai Niangku is a relative s of Shri Tako Changriang, who contested in the last General Assembly Election from 19 Nyapin. None of the victims has been made any complaint to any authority alleging that he is not granted relief. Sri Tai Niangku with this Public Interest Litigation only to get political mileage as stated above. If Shri Tai Niangku makes a fresh application his case shall be considered afresh since the application he has submitted was either withdrawn by him or that he might not have submitted at all. 10. We have heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. B.L. Singh, learned senior Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 11. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the name of fire victim a large amount of money has been misappropriated by the respondents and other Government officers including public functionaries denying necessary relief to the real victims. B.L. Singh, learned senior Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 11. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the name of fire victim a large amount of money has been misappropriated by the respondents and other Government officers including public functionaries denying necessary relief to the real victims. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the name of the Gaonburah of Sangram town has been dropped out allegedly due to human error but the respondents have not stated anything regarding the other such genuine persons who were denied with the relief and accordingly it is a fit case for passing appropriate orders in this P.I.L by this Court. During the course of argument the learned Counsel for the petitioner also led us to the different annexure annexed with the petition as well as some of the documents annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition. Refuting the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate General has submitted that the petition lakes (sic) material particulars in order to provide the necessary relief by giving direction as prayed for. It is submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed the nature of protest raised and the names and descriptions of the persons who are the genuine fire victims. In fact, the petitioner in the guise of PIL wants the court to pass an order for fishing enquiry without disclosing the necessary particulars relating to the facts germane to the issue involved. It has further submitted that this public interest petition is not genuine and bona fide and is liable to be dismissed. 12. It is the further case of the respondents that the local inhabitants of the State lead a life of community living. They structure long house mostly made out by thatched and bamboos. The floor is a platform about five feet above the ground, which are commonly known as "NAM" or "Chang Ghar". They maintain a joint family system even about 107 12 families are housed in such a structure and if fire catches in one house it is difficult to control the same. Accordingly, although the number of the house might be lesser but the number of families goes up. 13. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the materials on record. Accordingly, although the number of the house might be lesser but the number of families goes up. 13. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the materials on record. The relief and rehabilitation work in respect of the victims of natural calamities including fire is to be scrutinised by three different committees, i.e., the Circle Level Relief Committee, the District Level Committee and the State Level Steering Committee its having own and independent jurisdiction. The State Level Relief Committee is headed by Chief Secretary of the State with the members including Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation), Director (Relief and Rehabilitation) and Commissioner (Finance) etc., which is the ultimate authority in the hierarchy . From the affidavit-in-opposition it is seen that the matter relating to the scrutiny of assessment as well as the number of real fire victim was not placed before the State Level Steering Committee. 14. At Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 4 it is stated as follows : 8. That after sending the estimates forwarded by Circle Level Relief Committee three times for careful scrutiny, this deponent forwarded the decisions of the District Level Relief Committee to the Director, Relief and Rehabilitation for sanction of the payments to be made to the fire victims whose cases were recommended by the deponent. 9. That the deponent respectfully states that after verification and corrections made on the basis of actual findings by the Circle Level Relief Committee and in turn District Level Relief Committee, the Director, Relief and Rehabilitation issued two cheques one for Rs. 1,91,200 and other covering Rs. 11,16,000 sent to this deponent for disbursement. These amounts were promptly handed over to the Circle Officer, Sangram and Naypin Circles by this deponent for payments to be made to the victims. 15. It is, thus, clear that the matter was not placed before the State Level Steering Committee for necessary scrutiny and verification by the said body which is the highest in the hierarchy, consisting of higher and responsible officers like Chief Secretary, Commissioner (Finance), etc. The petitioner has not provided sufficient materials for coming to a concrete finding by this Court on the allegations made in the petition. Accordingly, we find it fit and proper to direct the Chief Secretary, Govt. The petitioner has not provided sufficient materials for coming to a concrete finding by this Court on the allegations made in the petition. Accordingly, we find it fit and proper to direct the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and Commissioner (Finance), Arunachal Pradesh to make a thorough enquiry about the allegation made by the petitioner and to find out about the truth thereof. The said two authorities will also be at liberty to induct any such higher officer/officers for this purpose. In the event of finding any such irregularities or illegalities as alleged, necessary action as deemed under the law should be taken against the earring person/persons. The aforesaid directions would be complied with preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order along with copies of the writ petition and affidavit-in-opposition with all annexure as contained therein to be submitted by the petitioner. It is further directed that, the result of the aforesaid enquiry shall be communicated to this Court by the Chief Secretary along with the action taken/proposed to be taken, as the case may be, for further necessary follow up action by this Court, if need be. 16. With the above directions, this writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.