Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 484 (GAU)

Society For Social Action v. State of Mizoram

2010-07-20

H.N.SARMA, KETULHOU MERUNO

body2010
JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation (for short 'PIL') was initiated against the alleged misutilisation of the funds received by the State of Mizoram for implementation of the Schemes sponsored by the Central Government under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (for short 'PMGSY') for the State of Mizoram during the period 2000-2005. 2. We have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner-society, Mr. Nelson Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the State Respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned Counsel appearing for some of the private Respondents. 3. The Petitioner herein, namely Society for Social Action, is a society registered under Societies Registration Act and the aims and objects of the society are (i) to mould and create a just society by fighting against corruptions, nepotism and favouritism in public life; (ii) to create awareness and to sensitize all citizens against all corrupt practices in public life; (iii) to nurture, develop and promote socio-economic justice; (iv) to maintain and protect Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to fight against all forms of social indignity, oppression and injustice and (v) to work together in close partnership with other societies and individuals having similar aims and objectives. 4. The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, which is commonly known as PMGSY, has been adopted by the Central Government for providing surface connection by constructing connectivity roads connecting different unconnected areas within the country. The scheme is to be implemented as per the guidelines which has specifically provided all the necessary requirements to be followed/adopted while implementing the scheme. Necessary fund for the Scheme is borne by the Central Government. It is alleged that in the State of Mizoram while implementing the scheme by constructing such roads, out of the roads so constructed, conditions for construction of 14 number of such roads were unsatisfactory and it was done in gross violation of the provisions of the guidelines of the scheme in a substandard manner. It is, further, contended that in the name of providing connectivity roads, certain existing roads were upgraded and in the process, huge amount of money were misappropriated. The Petitioner-society, therefore, undertook a survey to scrutinize the works done under nine projects which had been completed by the State Respondents under the PMGSY allegedly covering the length of 793.55 Kms. It is, further, contended that in the name of providing connectivity roads, certain existing roads were upgraded and in the process, huge amount of money were misappropriated. The Petitioner-society, therefore, undertook a survey to scrutinize the works done under nine projects which had been completed by the State Respondents under the PMGSY allegedly covering the length of 793.55 Kms. On such survey, the Petitioner found that only to the extent of 1.92 Km road length had been completed although it is shown as 793.55 Km. It is also contended that the standard of the works were not in accordance with the provisions of the guidelines framed under the scheme. The Petitioner has also referred to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (for short 'C and AG') which is prepared based on the data submitted in implementation of the Scheme by the State Respondents. The report points out various deficiencies in execution of the works including discrepancy of bank balance and over omissions and commissions. It is further contended that when the National Quality Control Monitoring Agency scrutinized the works done in 24 blocks, it found unsatisfactory in respect of such 14 works executed by the State Respondents. It is also contended that even the State Quality Control Monitoring Committee found unsatisfactory in respect of the works in Nunglei District. 5. On the back ground of the aforesaid complaints, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that an investigation through an independent agency may be conducted to unearth of the magnitude of deficiency so that public money so sanctioned for the purpose of public good is not wasted any more in the name of implementation of the Scheme. 6. The State Respondents have defended the case by filing counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. In the said counters, it is disclosed that though the Petitioner has alleged that in the name of connectivity, some of the old roads under the Scheme have been developed beyond the scope of the Scheme as provided under the definition at para 3.11 of the Guideline and although those roads are existing roads they were covered under the Scheme as connectivity road under the Scheme inasmuch as those are not all weather road. The Respondents have also categorically denied the allegations made in the writ petition. The Respondents have also categorically denied the allegations made in the writ petition. However, the report of the C and AG has been admitted and necessary steps have been taken with the department to take necessary measure. The locus of the Petitioner was also questioned categorically alleging that the allegation do not cover a case to be decided in a PIL. It is, further, contended that on the allegation of the Petitioner some enquiry was made by the Agency of the Central Government and accordingly when the matter was under consideration, such PIL ought not to have been filed. 7. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner by referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition more particularly the status of the road works under the Scheme submits that in some cases the roads have been constructed where there is not benefited habitants by the road connectivity. It is submitted that roads are not connected with benefited habitants. It is contended that there are similar other roads where there is no such connectivity and accordingly the Scheme as proposed by the Central Government has been misutilized and misused by the State and huge amount of fund has been misutilised. It is further contended by the learned Counsel by referring to phase-II of the road work status that in the name of redevelopment of some roads only pavement was done for 21 Kms for which an amount of Rs. 3.52 lakhs have been shown to have been spent without any actual expenditure. Referring to the report of the CAQ it is contended by the learned Counsel that out of 248 road connectivity for Mizoram, 73 roads were constructed for connection. 8. The discrepancy between the book balance and bank balance has been disclosed in the report. The report further discloses that in between 2000-2001 and 2003-2004, the Government of India sanctioned 7 road works on 5 roads at the cost of Rs. 17.12 crores for providing connectivity roads to 5 habitants (villages) in Aizawl (2) Champhai (1), Lunglei (1) and Serchhip (1) (as per DPR). The department completed all the seven works on 5 roads at a total cost of Rs. 16.64 crores. 17.12 crores for providing connectivity roads to 5 habitants (villages) in Aizawl (2) Champhai (1), Lunglei (1) and Serchhip (1) (as per DPR). The department completed all the seven works on 5 roads at a total cost of Rs. 16.64 crores. Verification of priority list and list of habitants made available to the audit revealed that out of the 5 roads, three had been included in the priority list without identifying the habitation to be covered while the remaining two had not been included in the priority list. Although works were completed, no habitation was benefited. Thus, the main objective of the scheme to connect the unconnected habitations even after incurring an expenditure of Rs. 16.64 crores was frustrated leading to injudicious expenditure/The report also indicates that the Government could not offer any comments as regards non-implementation of the targeted habitants in the priority list in 3 phases. The report also indicates the adoption of higher rates in preparation of estimates including buildings, etc., lack of competitive bidding, extra-expenditure due to rejection of lowest bidders. 9. Learned Counsel specifically refers to the non-acceptance of bank guarantee in respect of certain works. Under this Scheme a bank guarantee valued at 10% of the work which with validity period of 5 years is to be obtained from the Contractor. But for 17 works which were executed in six districts amounting to Rs. 34.09 crores, such bank guarantee had not been obtained. 10. The report also indicates that although the bank guarantee was required to be refunded only after completion of the works, the contractors were given undue benefit of Rs. 9.31 lakhs by allowing them to withdraw the bank guarantee before completing of the work. At paragraph-13 of the counter, it is stated that the said report of the C and AG has been forwarded by the PWD for clarification. 11. Mr. C. Lalramzauva while referring to the report of the National Quality Monitoring Agency submits that out of the 24 projects, 14 were found to be unsatisfactory by the Central Quality Monitoring Committee. The requirements of furnishing such report by the Monitoring Authority is provided in the Scheme itself at Clause 14.1, 14.2, 15.1 to 15.8. 11. Mr. C. Lalramzauva while referring to the report of the National Quality Monitoring Agency submits that out of the 24 projects, 14 were found to be unsatisfactory by the Central Quality Monitoring Committee. The requirements of furnishing such report by the Monitoring Authority is provided in the Scheme itself at Clause 14.1, 14.2, 15.1 to 15.8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended by the learned Counsel that in order to unearth the magnitude of the amount unauthorisedly spent under the PMGS Y, it needs to be fully investigation by a competent and proper investigating authority. 12. Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. AG on the other hand submits that the report of the C and AG, referred to by the Petitioner, has been referred to the department for necessary clarification, which has been stated in the counter and additional counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State Respondents 1 to 4. The learned Addl. Advocate General also submits that implementation of the said Scheme is an ongoing one and if there is any defect in implementing works, certainly the same will be rectified in terms of the Scheme and at this stage no reference to any investigating authority is called for. The learned Addl. Advocate General has not however disputed the report of the C and AG. Secondly, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the concerned Department is at liberty to clarify and examine the matter in the interest of public accounts committee. 13. The learned Addl. A.G further, submits that the construction of roads where there is no connectivity as alleged by the Petitioner is not correct inasmuch as such roads being a longer one and there may not be any habitation in the portion constructed at the first instance, when it would be completed, it would provide the benefit of the people of the area. But reading of the status of the road works as annexed by the Petitioner it is clear that in some cases there is no benefited villagers in respect of constructing such roads as indicated earlier. Clause 3 of the PMGSY Scheme is the guiding principles of PMGSY Scheme. Clause 3.4 provides that unconnected habitations are to be connected to nearby habitations already connected by an All-weather road or to Anr. Clause 3 of the PMGSY Scheme is the guiding principles of PMGSY Scheme. Clause 3.4 provides that unconnected habitations are to be connected to nearby habitations already connected by an All-weather road or to Anr. existing All-weather road so that services (educational, health, marketing facilities, etc.) which are not available in the unconnected habitation, become available to the residents. From the status of the road works prepared by the Respondent authorities it is disclosed that certain roads have been constructed without having any habitation. 14. Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned Counsel appearing for the private Respondents submits that the private Respondents are only contractors and they have executed the works allocated to them as per the instructions given for execution by the officials of the State Respondents. 15. We have also given our anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned Counsels and perused the connected materials made available before us including the C and AG report and the inspections reports of the State Quality Monitoring Committee and National Quality Monitoring Committee. From the report of the C and AG as well as the Monitoring Committees referred to above, we are prima facie satisfied that the works in questions have not been implemented in the manner as provided in the guidelines of the PMGSY. Some of the works under the Scheme as executed by the Government of Mizoram also include where there is no connectivity of the rural areas. For want of connectivity, the citizens in far flung areas are not getting basic amenities, such as education, medical facilities, etc. The Scheme is naturally to be implemented by the P.W.D. of the State, which has technically qualified staff with infrastructure for construction of the roads. It appears that the departmental authorities, as per the report of the C and AG and the Monitoring Committees, has not discharged their responsibilities in implementing the Scheme as provided under the Scheme. A public officer hold his position in trust for the public and he/she is bound to discharge the public duties for the public good and not for any other purpose. When there is breach of trust reposed on the public officers, it is a grave concern for all right thinking of the people. A public officer hold his position in trust for the public and he/she is bound to discharge the public duties for the public good and not for any other purpose. When there is breach of trust reposed on the public officers, it is a grave concern for all right thinking of the people. In view of the anomalies pointed out in the respective reports, we are of the view that the matter, including the allegations regarding non-implementation of the Scheme as per the guidelines under PMGSY with misutilisation and misuse of public money, it needs thorough investigation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the seriousness of the allegations and counter allegations, an investigation be done by the CBI. Let a copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the Inspector General of Police, CBI for taking up the matter and conduct the investigation by himself or through a competent officer not below the rank of Superintendent (CBI) to investigate on the allegations and counter allegations. The State Respondents are to provide all facilities to the investigating officer(s) for an effective investigation of the matter including perusal of documents, reports as well as documents. On completion of the investigation, a copy of the report be submitted to the Chief Secretary of the State for doing the needful and to take course to law. 16. With the above direction, this Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of. It is, however, directed that the Investigating Officer shall complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed of.