Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 426 (GAU)

Khekani v. State of Nagaland

2008-06-11

I.A.ANSARI

body2008
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The petitioners are selected candidates of a scheme, which is run under the name of Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana and is popularly known as PMRY Scheme, for the year 2007-08. The interview, for selecting candidates to grant financial benefits under the said scheme, was held from 11th to 13th September, 2007. In the selection process, so held, 97 candidates were selected. The selected candidates were subjected to undergo a training for a period of fourteen days w.e.f. 19th November, 2007, to 3rd December, 207. On completion of the training, a letter; in this regard, was issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Zunheboto, to the Director of Industries and Commerce, Nagaland, and, on completion of some other formalities, sanction orders were issued by the State Bank of India, Regional Branch, Dimapur, in favour of the selected beneficiaries. Before, however, the sanction orders could have been acted upon, and disbursement of the financial assistance, in terms of the sanction orders, could have been made, by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Zunheboto Branch, a news item was published in a daily newspaper, namely, Nagaland Post, dated 24.4.2008 the news item having been published at the instance of the respondent No. 3, namely. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Zunheboto, informing the selected beneficiaries of the said Scheme, including the present petitioners, that a re-scrutiny of their certificates/documents would be held on 29.4.2008. Impugning the said direction given to the selected as well as the wait-listed beneficiaries of the said Scheme, the present petitioners came to this Court seeking, with the help of this application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of appropriate Writ(s) setting aside, inter alia, the order, dated 4.4.2008, issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby a direction was given to the respondent No. 3, namely, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Zunheboto, to re-scrutinize, in the light of the guidelines of the Government of India, the list of selected beneficiaries including those, whose names figured in the waiting list, and also the order, dated 22.4.2008, whereby a Selection Board has been constituted to conduct the process of re-scrutiny as mentioned hereinbefore. 2. 2. As the sanction amounts were required, under the said Scheme, to be disbursed by 31.5.2008, or else, the sanction amounts would have lapse, an order was passed, on 28.5.2008, in this writ petition, directing the respondents/authorities concerned not to let the sanction amounts lapse by 31.5.2008 and that the amounts earmarked, under the said Scheme, shall be distributed after the disposal of the present writ petition. 3. Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Heard also Mr. J. Tiababa, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. The grievances of the writ petitioners are, in brief, thus: The impugned order, dated 4.4.2008, was issued by the respondent No. 3 at the behest of the Parliamentary Secretary for Industries and Commerce, Government of Nagaland, and, hence, the direction for re-scrutiny is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and for extraneous reasons. To the best of information of the petitioners, there was no waiting list as far as the second selected batch of candidates under the said Scheme are concerned and, hence, by resorting to a process of re-scrutiny, an attempt is being made to include, in the list of selected candidates, persons, who had not been earlier included therein, and thereby exclude from the list of selected candidates, some of those, who have already been selected. As the direction for re-scrutiny has been given just before the disbursement of the sanctioned amounts, the direction, so issued, smacks of mala fide. 5. While considering the above grievances of the writ petitioners, what needs to be noted is that in their affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have, while assigning reasons for directing re-scrutiny, averred that the re-scrutiny was considered necessary after it was discovered that in as many as 26 (twenty six) cases, the certificates/documents, submitted by the selected beneficiaries of the said Scheme, were fake/forged. In short, thus, the said respondents have assigned reason for directing re-scrutiny, the reason being that 26 cases have been detected, where the candidates have used fake or forged certificates/documents in order to obtain financial assistance under the said Scheme. In short, thus, the said respondents have assigned reason for directing re-scrutiny, the reason being that 26 cases have been detected, where the candidates have used fake or forged certificates/documents in order to obtain financial assistance under the said Scheme. Nothing could be produced or submitted by the present petitioners, at the time of hearing of this writ petition, to show that the averments, made by the State respondents as regards the detection of the fake and forged cases, are false. At any rate, it is, now, a question of fact as to whether the cases of fake and forged certificates/documents, having been used, were detected as contended by the said respondents or not. Determination of such a question of fact would require making of roving enquiry. Such an enquiry is not possible to hold in a writ proceeding of the present nature. 6. In the face of the fact that there is nothing available oh record belying the averments made by the State respondents to the effect that 26 cases have been detected, where fake or forged certificates/documents have been used by the beneficiaries of the Scheme, the Government's power to re-scrutinise the certificates/documents of all those beneficiaries, who may have been included either in the select list or in the waiting list, cannot be denied. As a matter of fact, not allowing, in a case of present nature, the State Government to re-scrutinize the cases, which the State respondents have sought to re-scrutinize, would be a negation of the rule of law, for, no one can be allowed to become beneficiary of his own illegal act. If any of the candidates, whose name appears either in the select list or in the waiting list, has used fake or forged certificates/documents, not only the Department of Industries or Commerce, Government of Nagaland, but the Ministry concerned would be held responsible. As the Department concerned falls within the Ministry of Industries and Commerce, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry concerned cannot be said to be an outsider, for, it is, eventually, the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister concerned, who would be answerable for any illegality, which might have been committed, while scrutinizing the requisite papers, certificates, documents, etc. In such circumstances, the direction to re-scrutinise the papers/certificates/documents cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or mala fide. In such circumstances, the direction to re-scrutinise the papers/certificates/documents cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or mala fide. This apart, since, according to the State respondents, cases of fake and forged certificates/documents, having been used, have been detected, it is within the domain of the State Government to constitute a body, other than the body, which had scrutinized earlier the papers, documents, etc., aforementioned. Considered in this light, it becomes clear that neither the impugned order, dated 4.4.2008, nor the order, dated 22.4.2008, can be said to be devoid of force of law. 7. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the process of re-scrutiny, which the State respondents have decided to take resort to. 8. It needs to be put on record that Mr. Jamir, learned senior Government Advocate, has made it clear that the process of re-scrutiny will not involve a new selection process and that under the impugned notification, dated 22.4.2008, the re-scrutiny will remain confined to re-examination of the papers, certificates, documents etc. which the candidates, whose names figured either in the select list or in the waiting list, have relied upon, so that fake or forged papers/certificates/documents, used or sought to be used, are detected and action according to law can be taken. 9. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is closed without interfering with the impugned order, dated 4.4.2008, and/or the impugned order, dated 22.4.2008, aforementioned making it, however, clear that in terms of the order, dated 4.4.2008, and the Notification, dated 22.4.2008, the re-scrutiny shall remain confined to the scrutiny of the papers, certificates, documents etc., which may have been relied upon by the selected as well wait listed candidates including the present petitioners. The whole exercise of re-scrutiny shall be completed within a period of one month from today and in terms of the findings of the re-scrutiny, further necessary order(s) may be passed by the respondents/authorities concerned. If any of the present petitioners feels aggrieved by the result of the re-scrutiny, he/she may take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible. 10. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall disburse the sanctioned amounts only after necessary order(s) are passed upon scrutiny, as directed hereinabove, by the State respondents/authorities concerned. If any of the present petitioners feels aggrieved by the result of the re-scrutiny, he/she may take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible. 10. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall disburse the sanctioned amounts only after necessary order(s) are passed upon scrutiny, as directed hereinabove, by the State respondents/authorities concerned. The interim directions passed, in this writ petition, shall accordingly stand modified. 11. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 12. No order as to costs. 13. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Government Advocate and also to the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank. Petition disposed of.