Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1105 (MAD)

R. Gopalakrishnan v. District Collector

2011-03-01

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2011
Judgment 1. The Petitioner claims that he is the sub-contractor for arranging labours to the Panchayat Union Works, whenever Panchayat carried out the works under the "Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana" (SGRY). The Panchayat officials, who were executing the said work could not mobilize such labours and therefore, the Petitioner arranged the labours for doing the said work. 2. As per said SGRY Scheme, the wages was given to the labourers by way of 70% rice and 30% in cash. As per request of the officials, the Petitioner arranged for the wages and paid the rice purchased in advance from open market and cash, as it would take long time to get rice and money from the authorities. 3. As far as Writ Petition No.6650 of 2010 is concerned, the Petitioner carried out the work in the year 2006 - 2007 laying of road in Arunapuram - Pilarampat village and Maruthur - Pilrampat road. The Petitioner contends that Respondents 1 & 2 sanctioned the rice to be distributed to the labours through the Petitioner and through the Panchayat Clerk. The Respondents 4 and 5 directed the concerned co-operative societies to distribute the rice, namely, 56,250 Kgs, 24,750 Kgs, 1,46,250 Kgs and 56,250 Kgs. In spite of sanction, the 3rd Respondent did not release the rice to the cooperative society or to the Panchayats. Therefore, the Petitioner made several representation including the representation, dated 26.12.2009. This Court directed the First Respondent in W.P. No.381 of 2010 by order, dated 8.1.2010 to pass appropriate order on the representation of the Petitioner. 4. As far as W.P. No.10955 of 2010 is concerned, it relates to the alleged execution of work by the Petitioner in Thiruvennainallore Panchayat Union, Muhaiyoor Panchayat Union. The Petitioner contends that he executed the work under SGRY Scheme by engaging the labours and paid money as well as distributed the rice after purchasing it from open market. Here also he contends that in spite of the execution of work, though he produced the coupons after clearance from the authority, CSCID Police prevented him from taking delivery of the rice. As he already incurred heavy amount in execution of the work, he is before this Court seeking Mandamus directing the Respondent to make delivery of, 5,03,257 Kgs of rice. 5. As he already incurred heavy amount in execution of the work, he is before this Court seeking Mandamus directing the Respondent to make delivery of, 5,03,257 Kgs of rice. 5. The Petitioner contends that the 3rd Respondent had released the rice to the concerned Co-operative Societies authorized by First Respondent and the rice is available in the Co-operative Society. When the Petitioner tried to take delivery of the rice from the said Co-operative Society by producing the coupons and orders of the Block Development Officer, the Respondents 6 & 7 are attempting to seize the said rice. Therefore, the Petitioner is before this Court, seeking Mandamus to allow the Petitioner to take delivery of SGRY rice from the concerned Society and transport the same to other Districts and States. 6. Mr. C. Prakasam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner executed the work as sub contractor and paid wages and also rice to the workers immediately after the execution of work. In spite of that, the Respondents are preventing the Petitioner from taking delivery of the rice, which the Petitioner is entitled to. The learned Counsel produced the original coupons issued by the authority for purchasing and getting the rice from the Cooperative Societies and submitted the very fact that the Petitioner has got all the coupons would prove that he executed the work. 7. On the other hand, Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate, submitted that the works are executed under SGRY scheme and same is governed by the guidelines issued by the Government of India. The works are required to be executed as per the said guidelines. He submitted the said programme is implemented by the department itself and contractors, sub-contractors/middle-man/intermediate agency are prohibited to execute the work. The full benefit of the wages paid should reach the workers and the cost of the works should not involve any commission charges payable to such contractors/ middleman/ intermediate agency. He further contends that in the order of the First Respondent/ Collector, it is stated that the works would be executed under the close supervision of Village Panchayats and the work order would be issued in the name of Rural Welfare Officer, Panchayat Assistant and they are fully responsible for everything. 8. He further contends that in the order of the First Respondent/ Collector, it is stated that the works would be executed under the close supervision of Village Panchayats and the work order would be issued in the name of Rural Welfare Officer, Panchayat Assistant and they are fully responsible for everything. 8. As per administrative sanction of the first Respondent dated 6.2.2007, the labours are to be engaged only by the Panchayat and therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Petitioner mobilized labourers for the said work and it was only done by the Village Panchayats. He further submitted that the work was not entrusted to the Petitioner by the Respondents 4 & 5 and the wages were paid to the labours by Village Panchayats and Panchayat clerk in this regard only. 9. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 8.1.2010, the First Respondent passed an order to release the rice to the concerned labourers, through Public Distribution System, if it was not yet distributed and there is no order issued to supply the rice to the Petitioner. He contended that the Petitioner illegally indulged in obtaining the coupons from the labourers so as to smuggle the rice and sell it in the black market because the rice is supplied at the subsidized rate to the labourers and it would cost more in the open market. The Petitioner obtained coupons from labourers for selling the rice at a higher rate. As many as five cases have been filed against the Petitioner for smuggling and block marketing PDS rice. 10. Admittedly, the works are executed under SGRY Scheme. The object of the Scheme is given in paragraph 1 & 1.13, which is extracted as follows: “1. OBJECTIVES 1.3. TARGET GROUP The SGRY will be open to all rural poor who are in need of wage employment and desire to do manual and unskilled work in and around his village/habitat. The Programme is self-targeting in nature. While providing wage employment, preference shall be given to agricultural wage earners, non-agricultural unskilled wage earners, marginal farmers, women, members of Schedule/Schedule Tribes and parents of child labour withdrawn from hazardous occupations, parents of handicapped children or adult children of handicapped parents who are desirous of working for wage employment" As per Class 5.16.1, there is ban on contractors, which reads as follows "16.1. Ban on Contractors : The programme will be implemented department ally only. Contractors are not permitted to be engaged for execution of any of the works under the programme. No middleman or any other intermediate agency should be employed for executing works under the programme. The full benefit of wages to be paid should reach the workers and the cost of the works should not involve any commission charges payable to such contractors, middlemen, or intermediate agency". The Petitioner programmes are to be implemented through Village Panchayat, as per Class 6.10.1, which is usefully extracted as follows: "Implementing Agencies of Second Stream: 6.10.1.The programme will be implemented through the Village Panchayats, who will be responsible for planning and execution of the Yojana. The technical supervison will be the responsibility of the DRDAs/ZPs. Execution of works can be entrusted to well established Self Help Groups under the Swaranajayanti Gramin Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)". Therefore, it is clear that the involvement of contractor/sub-contractor and intermediate agencies is prohibited and the consideration for the work to the labourer are partly paid in cash as well as by supply of rice to them. 11. Therefore, at the outset, the claim of the Petitioner that he was engaged by the officials to execute the work and he spent money for the same may not be correct as per the scheme. However, it is seen that the work was already carried out in the year 2006-2007 and it is admitted that the work was completed. If the works it were completed as early as in the year 2006 -2007, the rice should have been distributed to the labourers then and there immediately thereafter, or within a reasonable time. The communication, dated 2.7.2007 of the 5th Respondent addressed to the Cooperative Bank enclosing the coupon for the work executed was sent and the serial numbers are as follow. The quantity of rice covered by the said coupons are 1,46,250 Kgs. Similarly, the communication, dated 12.07.2007, addressed by the 4th Respondent to the Cooperative Societies enclosing the coupons bearing Nos.008251 -008300 and 008301 to 008330 and the quantity of rice covered under those coupons is 56,250 Kgs. Another communication, dated 19.7.2007 of the 4th Respondent speaks about the coupons, namely, 008701 - 008750, 008751 -008783 and the quantity of rice covered is 56,250 Kgs. The receipt of book No.132 as per communication, dated 10. Another communication, dated 19.7.2007 of the 4th Respondent speaks about the coupons, namely, 008701 - 008750, 008751 -008783 and the quantity of rice covered is 56,250 Kgs. The receipt of book No.132 as per communication, dated 10. 11.2007 of the 5th Respondent covers 24,750 Kgs of rice. Mr. G. Samraj, Panchayat Assistant, who is the Authorized Officer for the workers to receive the rice. Bunch of above original coupons with running numbers is produced by the Petitioner before this Court. It only shows that all the coupons were given to the Petitioner directly by the authority and it would not be possible for the Petitioner to get the coupons from individual worker or the labourers. Secondly, the work was executed in the year 2006 -2007 and the authority cannot keep the rice without distribution till the date. If the workers were not otherwise paid or given the rice, for the work done by them, the workers would not keep quite. Therefore, it is event that the workers were already paid money and given rice or value of the rice. 12. That apart, the Petitioner has been making representation to the authorities giving details about the work executed by him and the authority did not pass any orders, which compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court and obtained an order for disposal of his representation on 12.3.2010 the 3rd Respondent already directed the authority to release the rice after getting coupons. The aforesaid facts and proceedings would only show that contrary to the scheme, works were entrusted to the Petitioner and the coupons were also directly given to the Petitioner and as per the said coupons only Petitioner wants the rice to be given to him. 13. The Scheme named Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana prohibits the engagement of middlemen. However, as it observed above, in this case the officials did not act as per scheme and in fact that they acted in violation of the Scheme and entrusted the work to the middlemen like the Petitioner. It is not possible for the Petitioner to get all the coupons in connection with running serial numbers and therefore, the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner brought the coupons from the workers is proved to be wrong. 14. The very object of the Scheme is lost in the implementation by the officials. It is not possible for the Petitioner to get all the coupons in connection with running serial numbers and therefore, the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner brought the coupons from the workers is proved to be wrong. 14. The very object of the Scheme is lost in the implementation by the officials. Therefore, action is required to be taken against the officials by conducting a proper enquiry. It is not possible for the authority to keep the rice with them for the work done that has been executed in the year 2006 -2007. No proper attention has been given by the higher officials to review as to how the programme which is intended to create employment opportunities with food security. The case on hand, only shows that the officials are incapable of implementing beneficial programmes by themselves and they depend upon the intermediates. If there is any difficulty in implementation, the official are required to give feedback to the authorities giving the details of the problems faced by them while implementing the Scheme. Instead of doing so, in violation at the SGRY Guidelines, it is seen that the officials have violated the scheme by engaging subcontractors like Petitioner. 15. It is not possible for an ordinary prudent person to invest his money and execute the work without any assurance from the officials. The execution of works by the Petitioner may be true. The violation committed by the officials landed the Petitioner in problem. The Petitioner might have spent money for executing the work. However, the Petitioner seems to have executed the work in violation of the Guidelines. Therefore, any amount spent by the Petitioner for executing the works, which were entrusted to him in violation of the Scheme cannot be returned to him and the rice for the coupons could be delivered to him. 16. As stated above, the work was executed in violation of SGRY Guidelines and he obtained coupons for rice and the same cannot be delivered to him. If any direction is given in this regard, it would only amount to condone the illegality committed by the authority and it would enable the Petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the illegality. There cannot be a direction contrary to the scheme. Therefore, the prayer as sought for cannot be granted and therefore, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. 17. If any direction is given in this regard, it would only amount to condone the illegality committed by the authority and it would enable the Petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the illegality. There cannot be a direction contrary to the scheme. Therefore, the prayer as sought for cannot be granted and therefore, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. 17. As stated above, the officials are guilty of violating the guidelines of the SGRY in implementing the programmes by engaging intermediate and therefore the First Respondent is directed to investigate and enquire into the matter in detail and take appropriate action against the officials, at the earliest point of time, otherwise the scheme which is aimed to provide employment opportunity with food security and developments would be defeated. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.