Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 575 (GAU)

Haj Koyang v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2005-08-09

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The Petitioners in both the writ petitions have alleged manipulations in preparing the list of beneficiaries under the schemes called Indira Awaas Yojana (LAY) and Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojana (PMGY). The controversy raised in both the writ petitions being the one and the same, the writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. W.P. (C) No. 57 (AP) of 2005 2. The Petitioners in this writ petition are Gram Panchayat Members some of whom are Chairpersons. Under the Panchayat Raj Act applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the three tire system of constituting Gram Sabha, Anchalik Samity and Zila Parishad is prevalent in the State. The Government of India has launched various beneficial schemes such as JAY, PMGY etc. The basic purpose of the schemes is to uplift the indigenous people from below the poverty line. With such a view, the Government of India has allotted funds to the State to sanction appropriate amount upon identification of the deserving persons as per the guidelines laid down in the schemes. Such amount is to be distributed to the deserving persons for construction of houses with minimum amenities. 3. Various parameters have been laid down in the schemes such as identification of the beneficiaries, priority in selection of beneficiaries, involvement of the beneficiaries, allotment of houses etc. Prioritization of beneficiaries has been indicated in the scheme as follows: 2.2 Priority in Selection of Beneficiaries Prioritization of beneficiaries will be as follows: (i) Freed bounded labourers (ii) SC/ST households SC/ST households who are victims of atrocity SC/ST households, headed by widows and unmarried women SC/ST households affected by flood, natural calamities like earthquake, cyclone and man-made calamities like riot Other SC/ST households (iii) Families/widows of personnel from defence services/paramilitary forces, killed in action (iv) Non-SC/STBPL households (v) Physically and mentally challenged persons (vi) Ex-servicemen and retired members of the paramilitary forces (vii) Displaced persons on account of development projects, nomadic/seminomadic, and de-notified tribals, families with physically/mentally challenged members The selection of the beneficiaries will be subject to the condition that the household of all the above categories except (iii) are Below Poverty Line (BPL) 4. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that without following the guidelines the impugned list of beneficiaries under IAY in the year 2004-05 under Ziro-1 CD Block, Lower Subansiri District, has been prepared and forwarded by the impugned Annexure-P3 letter dated 6.12.2004. This letter addressed to the Project Director, Director, DRDA, Lower Subansiri District, has been forwarded by the Block Development Officer. 5. Placing reliance on the guidelines laid down in the schemes, it is the case of the Petitioners that there has been large scale deviation of the procedure for selecting the beneficiaries by the Gram Sabhas. As per the said procedure, the beneficiaries are to be selected by the Gram Sabhas on the basis of the priority and the list so prepared is required to be sent to the DRDA for release of funds. There are number of Gram Sabhas situated within the jurisdiction of the Block Development Officer, Ziro-1 CD Block. The Government of India sanctioned a substantial amount for implementation of the schemes by way of extending financial assistance to the identified beneficiaries for construction/ upgradation of rural houses. Such financial assistance is normally to be given to the persons below the poverty line. 6. In paragraph-8 of the writ petition, the Petitioners have stated that they were expecting the process of selection of beneficiaries on the basis of the priority as indicated above. Contrary to their such expectation when no intimation was given to them, they made enquiry and on such enquiry they could come to know about forwarding of the impugned list of beneficiaries which according to them was prepared secretly and without any basis. Representations alleging large scale irregularities were submitted to the Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 which have been annexed as Annexure-P series. By Annexure-P6 letter dated 25.12.2004 issued by the Minister (RD and RWD) of the State to the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro direction was issued to approach the Director, DRDA, Ziro not to distribute the materials procured under PMGY/GA/IAYA schemes of Ziro till finalization of the list of beneficiaries prepared by the Panchayat. By Annexure-P7 resolution adopted by the Zila Parishad and Anchalik Samity Chairperson, a demand was made for a proper course of action in the matter and a resolution was forwarded by the District Chairperson of Lower Subansiri Zila Parishad, Ziro to the Jurisdictional Officer by letter dated 27.12.2004. 7. By Annexure-P7 resolution adopted by the Zila Parishad and Anchalik Samity Chairperson, a demand was made for a proper course of action in the matter and a resolution was forwarded by the District Chairperson of Lower Subansiri Zila Parishad, Ziro to the Jurisdictional Officer by letter dated 27.12.2004. 7. In a nutshell, it is the grievance of the Petitioners that although as per the guidelines laid down in the schemes, it is Gram Sabhas which on the basis of the criteria laid down in the schemes, are to prepare the list of beneficiaries, but the Respondents prepared the list secretly at the behest of some vested interest and thus flouted the criteria laid down in the schemes. The Petitioners contend that with such a procedure adopted by the Respondents, the real persons who are below the poverty line have been deprived of the benefits of the schemes. W.P. (C) No. 83 (AP) of 2005 8. In this writ petition also the same very allegations as in the first writ petition have been made. The Petitioners are the Zila Parishad members and Chairperson of Ziro-1 Panchayat Raj constituency. They contend that they are responsible for implementation of welfare schemes as per the guidelines laid down in the aforementioned schemes. According to them, the impugned list of beneficiaries has been prepared and forwarded by letter dated 6.12.2004 without any basis and without associating the Petitioners which is the requirement of the schemes. 9. The Respondents have filed their counter affidavits in both the writ petitions. According to them the impugned list was prepared on the basis of the recommendations made by the various Gram Sabhas. The Respondents have taken the plea that the Petitioners have got no locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the so called deprived persons are not before this Court. The private Respondents (Respondent No. 5) has also filed his counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the Petitioners. According to him the impugned list which is a compilation of various lists submitted by the Gram Sabhas contains the names of the genuine beneficiaries and no interference is called for to the same. 10. Affidavit in reply has also been filed by the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 57 (AP) of 2005 highlighting the alleged irregularities in preparing the impugned list. 10. Affidavit in reply has also been filed by the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 57 (AP) of 2005 highlighting the alleged irregularities in preparing the impugned list. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have advanced the same very contention as that of the affidavit filed in the first writ petition. 11. I have heard Mr. M. Batt, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 57 (AP) of 2005 and Mr. T. Michi, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 83 of 2005. I have also heard Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior G.A., A.P. appearing for the Respondents. Mr. N. Grayu alongwith Mr. Rubu Tagia argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 in W.P. (C) No. 57 (AP) 105. 12. Mr. Batt and Mr. Michi in their forceful arguments highlighted the parameters laid down in the schemes towards identification of the beneficiaries and the procedure to be adopted for the purpose. Mr. Batt referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition submitted that large scale irregularities were committed towards selecting the beneficiaries. Placing reliance on the Annexure-8 series documents annexed to the writ petition, he submitted as to how one Smt. Lijagi Pussi, GPM under whose Chairmanship the meeting for selecting the beneficiaries was conducted, selected herself. Similarly in another document of Annexure-8 series reflects as to how the Chairperson one Shri Kure Lagi selected himself as the beneficiary. In this document there is no signature of the persons who purportedly attended the meeting and whose names appear from serial No. 1 to 7. In another document one Shri Hage Tagyung who is not a GPM, but an Anchalik Samity Member (ASM) presided over the meeting as the Chairman and elected his own wife Smti. Hage Young. Yet another document indicates that one Smti. Koz Yadung who is not a member of GP presided over the purported meeting and selected the beneficiaries. 13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the first writ petition has also referred to a document regarding the minutes of the meeting of Dilang Leyu GPM segment under the Chairperson of Mr. Mudang Take who is not the Chairperson of the GPM. In another document of Annexure-8 series appearing at page-84 of the writ petition, the name of the beneficiary Shri Dusu Tamang, son of late Dusu Talle appears. Mudang Take who is not the Chairperson of the GPM. In another document of Annexure-8 series appearing at page-84 of the writ petition, the name of the beneficiary Shri Dusu Tamang, son of late Dusu Talle appears. However, in the impugned list the name of his father is shown as Shri Dusu Tajang. According to the Petitioners the real beneficiary Shri Dusu Tamang has not been included in the impugned list and another person with the same name has been included. In this manner, various irregularities in preparing the lists which eventually culminated to the impugned list have been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 14. Mr. Michi, learned Counsel appearing in the second writ petition, apart from pointing out to the above irregularities and submitted that the process towards identification of beneficiaries has not been initiated associating the Zila Parishad. According to him, the whole basis of selecting the beneficiaries is illegal. Placing reliance on clause-3 of the scheme pertaining to PMGY, Mr. Michi submitted that it is the District Rural Development Agency/Zila Parishad who are to decide the number of houses to be constructed Panchayat wise and the same was required to be intimated to the Gram Panchayat. It is only thereafter the Gram Sabha will select the beneficiaries from the list of eligible households: He submitted the procedure envisaged in the scheme was not followed towards preparation of the lists which are nothing but manipulations which eventually culminated to the impugned list. 15. Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior GA. raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions in absence of the beneficiaries included in the impugned list who according to him are necessary parties to this proceeding. Referring to the records of the case, he submitted that Gram Sabha meetings were held following due procedure and on the basis of selection made by the Gram Sabhas, the list containing the names of the beneficiaries were sent and the impugned list which is a compilation of the lists so sent by the Gram Sabhas, was prepared. He submitted that there was no infirmity in preparing the impugned lists. 16. Mr. N. Grayu, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 in W.P. (C) No. 57 of (AP) 2005 adopting the argument of Mr. He submitted that there was no infirmity in preparing the impugned lists. 16. Mr. N. Grayu, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 in W.P. (C) No. 57 of (AP) 2005 adopting the argument of Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior GA., submitted that the lists of beneficiaries with which the present proceeding is concerned has almost been exhausted leaving aside a few beneficiaries. He submitted that the writ Court will not go into the disputed questions of fact. He also raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties. 17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have given my anxious consideration to the same. I have also gone through the entire records. On perusal of the same, the irregularities as pointed out by Mr. Batt, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, are so glaring that the writ Court cannot ignore the same, by accepting the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondents in respect of the pleas of non-joinder of necessary parties and involvement of disputed questions of fact. On a bare perusal of the schemes, it will be seen that there is a novel idea behind towards upliftment of the persons below the poverty line. Various parameters have been laid down in the schemes for selecting the real beneficiaries and for the purpose, the procedure has also been laid down. It is the Gram Sabhas who are to select the beneficiaries on the basis of the meetings to be presided over by the Chairpersons. 18. In the instant writ petitions, the Petitioners are GPMs and some of whom are also the Chairpersons. In the second writ petition, the Petitioners are the Zila Parishad and Anchalik Samity members some of whom are also not Chairpersons. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondents are evasive and even have not dealt with the irregularities pointed out in the writ petitions. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the first writ petition, the Petitioners have made definite allegations of not following the guidelines by the Respondents. In paragraph 9, they have stated about submitting the list of beneficiaries secretly to the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent No. 4 without prior knowledge or information to the Gram Sabhas. The reply furnished by the Respondents is completely evasive. In paragraph 9, they have stated about submitting the list of beneficiaries secretly to the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent No. 4 without prior knowledge or information to the Gram Sabhas. The reply furnished by the Respondents is completely evasive. Except a general denial with a further statement that the records of the case will speak the truth, no materials have been placed so as to inspire the confidence of this Court. 19. Apart from the irregularities pointed out above, so staring on the face of it, another shocking revelation is that as per the own stand of the Respondents, the Gram Sabha meetings were held on the basis of the Annexure-A circular dated 2.12.2004. All the Gram Sabha Chairpersons and Gram Sabha Members were requested to conduct Gram Sabha meetings on the subject of selection of beneficiaries under IAY and PMGY of respective villages as indicated in the circular letter dated 2.12.2004. However, some of the meetings were allegedly held on 2.12.2004 itself which is simply unbelievable. Even if the circular letter dated 2.12.2004 had reached the members and Chairpersons of Gram Sabhas on 2.12.2004, the meetings could not have been held on 2.12.2004 itself inasmuch as the process, so intrinsically connected such as issuance of notice and/or furnishing of information to the members, organization of meeting etc. would naturally consume time. Interestingly, some of the meetings were held on the date of issuance of circular and immediately thereafter the alleged compilation was made and forwarded on 6.12.2004. Thus, everything was done in quick succession giving room for concrete foundation that all was not well in the affairs of selecting the real beneficiaries. 20. The records produced by Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel indicate holding of such meeting even on 6.12.2004. If that be so, where was the occasion to go for a compilation of the lists and then to forward the same on the same date, i.e. 6.12.2004. All these irregularities coupled with no specific denial on the part of the Respondents lead to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned list was prepared not on the basis of the actual Gram Sabha meetings. 21. I now deal with the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the official as well as the private Respondents relating to the disputed questions of fact. The matter has already been dealt with. It is not a case of requiring any hovering enquiry. 21. I now deal with the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the official as well as the private Respondents relating to the disputed questions of fact. The matter has already been dealt with. It is not a case of requiring any hovering enquiry. The materials which have been brought on record indicating large scale irregularities in selecting the beneficiaries coupled with no specific denial of the same by the official Respondents, are so staring on the face of it, that the jurisdiction of the writ Court which is a mean to reach injustice wherever it is found, cannot be denied to the Petitioners. There is also no disputed questions of fact and the facts in this proceeding speak for itself that the Respondents committed irregularities in selecting the beneficiaries. 22. As regards the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties, suffice is to say that the Petitioners do not claim any benefit over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that the criteria adopted by the State Government in drawing up the list involves illegality and the relief claimed is against the State Government restraining it from distributing the benefits under the schemes on the basis of the impugned list drawn up by it. Thus, the relief claimed is against the State Government and not against any particular individual. In this connection, I may gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India and other, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 601 . Same view has been expressed in the case of The G.M. South Central Railway v. A.S.V. Siddhantti and other reported in (1974) 4 SCC 335 . On both these two decisions, the Apex Court placed reliance in the case of V.P. Srivastava v. State of M.P., reported in (1996) 7 SCC 759 , in negating similar contention. Further, the case of the beneficiaries included in the impugned list has not gone unrepresented inasmuch as their case has been represented by the State Respondents and by the private Respondent. In such circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the plea of the Respondents relating to non-joinder of necessary party is not tenable. 23. Further, the case of the beneficiaries included in the impugned list has not gone unrepresented inasmuch as their case has been represented by the State Respondents and by the private Respondent. In such circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the plea of the Respondents relating to non-joinder of necessary party is not tenable. 23. In view of the above, the impugned letter dated 6.12.2004 (Annexure-P3) containing the impugned list in respect of which the present proceedings have been initiated stands set aside and quashed. The Respondents shall ensure preparation of a fresh list pertaining to the segments in respect of which the present proceedings have been launched strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the schemes. The Respondents No. 2 and 3 shall ensure free and fair selection of beneficiaries by the respective Gram Sabhas following the procedure laid down in the scheme. If need be, Authorized Officer may be deputed to supervise the meetings to be held for selecting the real beneficiaries. It is expected that the Respondents will rise to the occasion with a sense of belonging to the real cause behind the formulation of the schemes which are to help the people below the poverty line. No amount of irregularity in such a matter can be tolerated. 24. Entire exercise towards selecting the beneficiaries under the schemes shall be carried out within a period of two months from today in the manner and method as provided in the schemes. As indicated above, if need by, Authorized Officers can be deputed to supervise the free and fair selection of the beneficiaries in the meeting to be conducted by the Gram Sabhas. 25. Both the writ petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.