Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 818 (BOM)

Rangnath Murlidhar Wani v. State of Maharashtra

2012-04-18

NARESH H.PATIL, S.B.DESHMUKH

body2012
Judgment (Naresh H. Patil, J.) 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.2.2009 issued by respondent No.2 -Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad granting administrative approval in respect of the proposals under Jawahar Vihir Yojana ("the said scheme" hereinafter). Petitioner No.1 is a Member of Legislative Assembly from Vaijapur taluka constituency and Chairman of the Taluka Level Co-ordination Committee which forwards names of the beneficiaries under the said scheme. Petitioner No.2 is the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Vaijapur. He too was a Member of the said committee at the relevant time. The petitioners contend that they belong to Shiv Sena -a political party. 3. By Government Resolution dated 24.5.2002 a scheme for allocating funds for the said scheme was introduced. A method of selection of deserving persons was prescribed under the said Government Resolution. Taluka and District level committies were formed for the said purposes. A programme was already prescribed for the said purposes. Copy of the Government Resolution is placed on record at Exhibit "E". 4. The petitioners contend that a list of beneficiaries under the scheme was approved by the Taluka Coordination Committee in 1:2 ratios. The meeting of the Taluka Coordination Committee was held on 15.10.2008 and list of 94 persons was approved. Said list was forwarded through Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Vaijapur, to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad on the same day i.e. 15.10.2008. It is the case of the petitioners that out of 94 persons, the District Level Committee was expected to select 47 beneficiaries. The Chairman of District Level Committee is the Guardian Minister of the Aurangabad district. The petitioners contend that at the relevant time the Guardian Minister was belonging to the ruling party in the State i.e. Congress (I) party. 5. In accordance with the said scheme, proposal under the Government Resolution was sent to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, who was expected to select the beneficiaries from the list submitted by the Taluka Coordination Committee. The grievance of the petitioners is that in-spite of submission of the list by the Taluka Coordination Committee to the District Level Committee said list was not scrutinised. The grievance of the petitioners is that in-spite of submission of the list by the Taluka Coordination Committee to the District Level Committee said list was not scrutinised. The decision to select the beneficiaries out of the said list was deliberately delayed as the authorities acted upon the instructions of the Honourable Guardian Minister for selection of the beneficiaries as suited to the ruling party and as desired by the Honourable Guardian Minister. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the original scheme was floated on 1.7.1999 and was revised on 24.5.2002 under the Government Resolutions. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by this Court (Coram : B.H.Marlapalle & Naresh H.Patil, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.5229 of 2000 dated 30.4.2002. Based on the said judgment, the State revised its policy and issued a Government Resolution. A reference is made to the circular dated 10.10.2004 and Government Resolutions dated 17.11.2007 and 24.3.2008. Certain targets were provided to each districts under the scheme by issuing Government Resolution. For Aurangabad district in the year 2007-08, 380 wells were sanctioned and for that purpose beneficiaries were to be selected. As the selection could not be finalised, the period for selection was extended up to 15.10.2008 by the Government and it was accordingly communicated to the concerned Panchayat Samiti vide communication dated 24.9.2008. 7. The petitioners have taken objection to selection of 47 beneficiaries. Intimation of their selection was given by the communication dated 26.2.2009. Administrative approval was granted to the list by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 8. The petitioners' grievance is that the proposal of the Taluka Coordination Committee was over-looked, bye-passed and totally neglected while selecting the beneficiaries. Out of selected 47 beneficiaries, 9 beneficiaries were in the list submitted by the Taluka Coordination Committee. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Taluka Coordination Committee held its meeting and prepared a list & submitted the proposal in respect of 94 persons for approval. Out of 94 persons, 47 persons were to be selected. The petitioners do not insist that the particular persons ought to have been selected out of 94 persons, but instead of considering the list prepared by the Taluka Coordination Committee, the authorities delayed the final selection and thereafter prepared a separate list under the pretext that there was delay in submitting the list from the Taluka Coordination Committee. The petitioners do not insist that the particular persons ought to have been selected out of 94 persons, but instead of considering the list prepared by the Taluka Coordination Committee, the authorities delayed the final selection and thereafter prepared a separate list under the pretext that there was delay in submitting the list from the Taluka Coordination Committee. Learned counsel submits that this exercise was conducted at the behest of the Honourable Guardian Minister, who belongs to Congress (I) Party. As the Taluka Coordination Committee was headed by M.L.A. who belongs to a different political party, the scheme of the State Government was frustrated in respect of selection of the beneficiaries. Learned counsel further submits that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad exercised his powers arbitrarily, against the record and the spirit of the judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.5229 of 2000. Learned counsel submits that the meeting of the District Level Committee was not held and abruptly bye-passing the normal procedure, a separate list was prepared and approved. 10. Consequent to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad filed affidavit-in-reply through the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The deponent placed reliance on the circular dated 30.8.2008, under which, according to the deponent, if the Taluka Coordination Committee did not provide recommendations within time, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad had to verify and scrutinize the list on/or before 20.10.2008 & then to submit the list to the Honourable Guardian Minister who is the Chairman of the District Level Committee. According to the deponent, the list was to be finalised before 15.10.2008, in view of the Government Resolution dated 30.8.2008, the deponent contends that as the list was not submitted in time, the Government considering the issue, communicated its dis-pleasure for not implementing the scheme promptly. 11. Learned counsel Shri Bondar, appearing for the Zilla Parishad submits that the allegations made against the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad are baseless. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad & Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad were bound under the scheme framed by the State Government and the circulars and instructions issued from time to time in this regard. 11. Learned counsel Shri Bondar, appearing for the Zilla Parishad submits that the allegations made against the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad are baseless. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad & Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad were bound under the scheme framed by the State Government and the circulars and instructions issued from time to time in this regard. When it was noticed that the list was not forwarded within time and could not be finalised, in view of the instructions issued by the State Government, the list was got prepared through the responsible officers of the Zilla Parishad and thereafter, the beneficiaries were selected and their names were approved. The learned counsel submits that the allegations of arbitrary exercise of power are unfounded. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad took steps with a view to effectively implement the scheme and not to frustrate the same. 12. Honourable Minister Shri Dr.Patangrao Kadam (respondent No.3 in this petition), at the relevant time was the Honourable Guardian Minister of Aurangabad district. The Respondent No.3 has filed affidavitin-reply. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 refuted the allegations made against respondent No.3 by petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the Honourable Guardian Minister acted in tune with the scheme framed by the State Government, which was beneficial scheme for the public at large. Being the Guardian Minister, it was his responsibility to supervise that the schemes of the States, which are framed for the benefit of the people at large and effectively implemented. The allegations of political interest and interference made by the petitioners are also denied by respondent No.3 as ill-founded and based on imagination. 13. We have perused the record placed before us and considered the scheme floated by the State Government. We have also perused the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.5229 of 2000. 14. It is unfortunate that a scheme of this nature framed for the benefit of rural population of the State for making provision for adequate water is locked in the legal battle and practically frustrated. Fruits of the scheme ought to have been delivered to the people at large promptly but due to the dispute which emerged at the relevant time, the scheme could not be implemented. 15. We have perused the Government Resolution dated 24.5.2002, which provides for two types of committees. Fruits of the scheme ought to have been delivered to the people at large promptly but due to the dispute which emerged at the relevant time, the scheme could not be implemented. 15. We have perused the Government Resolution dated 24.5.2002, which provides for two types of committees. The Taluka Coordination Committee proposes names of the beneficiaries and the District Level Committee headed by the Honourable Guardian Minister finally selects the beneficiaries. We have noticed that though the list was submitted on 15.10.2008 by the Taluka Coordination Committee, which was the cut off date for finalising the list, the authorities concerned resorted to a different procedure for selecting the beneficiaries. In the facts of the case, we do not find any difficulty for the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad or the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad for placing the said list before District Level Committee for selecting the beneficiaries. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad approved a list on 26.2.2009 i.e. near about three months after the submission of the list by the Taluka Coordination Committee. Though it is explained by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad that one circular was issued and instructions from the State Government were issued for finalisation of the list of beneficiaries but we are not convinced with the explanation for not placing the list submitted by the Taluka Coordination Committee before the District Level Committee for selecting the beneficiaries. It is necessary to mention that the petitioners do not insist for particular persons, out of 94, to be selected as the beneficiaries. Even during course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that any deserving person out of the list submitted by them to District Level Committee could have been selected but that could not happen. 16. The second issue is in respect of the manner and method of preparation of the second list of the proposed beneficiaries of 47 persons. During the course of hearing, it was submitted that the names of said persons were provided by the concerned Block Development Officer. True it is that this procedure is not anticipated in the Government Resolution dated 24.5.2002. During the course of hearing, it was submitted that the names of said persons were provided by the concerned Block Development Officer. True it is that this procedure is not anticipated in the Government Resolution dated 24.5.2002. In the circumstances of exigencies, urgency and failure of the Taluka Coordination Committee to hold meetings or to forward the list within time in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government, in the public interest, executive could have resorted to a reasonable procedure of forwarding the list or approving the list of beneficiaries but in the facts of the present case, we do not notice any exigency or failure of the Taluka Coordination Committee to forward the list. Therefore the explanation given by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad for not accepting the list submitted by the Taluka Coordination Committee for placing it before the District Level Committee is not acceptable. 17. The State Government had provided a target of 380 wells in the Aurangabad district Learned AGP Shri Ghadge sought written instructions from the State in this regard as to whether the scheme still exists. The communication dated 17.4.2012 is tendered before us. It is taken on record and marked Exhibit "X" for identification. The State submits that as the target is not yet achieved, the scheme could be implemented in Vaijapur taluka of Aurangabad district and the State would provide the necessary funds therefor. 18. After considering the matter in its entirety, we have also carefully considered the implications of selecting the beneficiaries form the list submitted by the Taluka Coordination Committee in the year 2008, since we are dealing with the issue in the year 2012. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent -Zilla Parishad fairly states that they are not interested in either of the names in both the lists. and if directed, the committees would prepare a fresh list of deserving persons to be beneficiaries under the scheme as the purpose of implementation of the scheme is a public purpose. 19. Viewed from this angle, considering the nature of dispute and the fact that sufficient time had elapsed since the preparation of the earlier list, we are of the view that the respondents need be directed to take steps for preparation of a fresh list under the said scheme. 19. Viewed from this angle, considering the nature of dispute and the fact that sufficient time had elapsed since the preparation of the earlier list, we are of the view that the respondents need be directed to take steps for preparation of a fresh list under the said scheme. As it is a known fact that rural areas of Aurangabad district are facing acute paucity of water. It is proper time now that the benefits to be provided by the State vide Government Resolution dated 30.8.2008 reach the citizens at large. 20. In the result, Writ Petition No.1701 of 2009 is allowed. Both the lists one submitted by the Taluka Coordination Committee and another prepared and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad vide order dated 26.2.2009 are quashed and set aside. We direct that the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad shall issue an appropriate instruction to the Taluka Coordination Committee to prepare a fresh list of the beneficiaries at the earliest. The process of selection of beneficiaries shall be completed within four months from today. 21. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. 22. So far as Writ Petition No.1706 of 2009 is concerned, Shri Bondar, learned counsel for the respondent -Zilla Parishad submits that the scheme for Aurangabad taluka has already been implemented and the petition has become in fructuous. 23. Writ Petition No.1706 of 2009 thus stands dismissed as in fructuous. No order as to costs.