Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 36 (CAL)

Jharna Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2013-01-22

ARUN MISHRA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred for quashing of the order dated January 2, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 22277 (W) of 2010. 2. The learned Single Judge, in his order, has referred to the facts mentioned in the report submitted by the District Magistrate, South 24-Paraganas and disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Magistrate to take an appropriate decision in the matter and, if necessary, to initiate criminal complaint against those, who are responsible - either directly or indirectly - for not letting public money reach the hands of the intended beneficiaries since nothing could be more distressing and appalling an example than what transpires from the records of the writ petition. 3. The aforesaid order has been questioned in this appeal. 4. It is not disputed at bar that now a criminal prosecution has been filed and the same is pending consideration before the appropriate court. 5. It is the contention of the appellant that, in fact, there were certain irregularities, but there was no defalcation of money. In this regard, he has referred to the report of the Panchayet Development Officer, Baruipur, South 24 Paraganas, in which it has been mentioned that the concerned Pradhan, Executive Assistant, Secretary and one of the Sahayaks of Madarat Gram Panchayet were present at the time of enquiry. They have gone through the E.L.A audit report for the year 2007-08 and found no defalcation of money, but noticed some irregularities in respect of some statutory procedures of payments and maintenance of the book of accounts. 6. The appellant has also referred to the communication dated November 21, 2011 of the Block Development Officer, Baruipur, South 24-Paraganas, sent to the Sub Divisional Officer, Baruipur, in which it has been mentioned that in case of six unconfirmed cases of non-receipt of NOAPS fund from the Madarat Gram Panchayet for the mentioned period could not be established in absence of depositions from the three deceased persons or from their legal heirs. In this regard an instruction has been issued to the Pradhan and employees of the said gram panchayet to abide by the rules and regulations in their day to day working. 7. Mr. Srikanta Dutta, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the respondents no. In this regard an instruction has been issued to the Pradhan and employees of the said gram panchayet to abide by the rules and regulations in their day to day working. 7. Mr. Srikanta Dutta, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the respondents no. 12 and 13 and supports the report of the Panchayet Development officer and the communication dated November 21, 2011. He has submitted that the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, who is the higher official, is binding and the District Magistrate, South 24-Paraganas, has taken an independent decision in the matter in terms of which the police has investigated into the matter and has filed charge sheet. No prayer has been made in the writ application to quash the charge sheet. 8. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has issued any peremptory direction upon the District Magistrate to initiate a criminal prosecution, but the District Magistrate was directed only to take a decision in the matter. 9. After hearing Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the respondents no. 12 and 13 and having perused the materials on record, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out so as to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the fact that a criminal case has already been filed and the same is pending consideration before the concerned court, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, since the learned Single Judge has not passed any peremptory direction upon the District Magistrate concerned to launch the criminal prosecution. 10. The District Magistrate was directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter and, if necessary, to initiate criminal complaint against those, who were responsible for the illegalities and/or irregularities mentioned in the report of the Sub Divisional Officer concerned. 11. Since no peremptory direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge, the order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference by us. 12. The fact, which was found from the report of the Sub Divisional Officer concerned, is with regard to the disbursement of NOAPS amongst the beneficiaries. From the said report, it appears that except the matter under serial no. 12. The fact, which was found from the report of the Sub Divisional Officer concerned, is with regard to the disbursement of NOAPS amongst the beneficiaries. From the said report, it appears that except the matter under serial no. 1 relating to disbursement of NOAPS amongst the eighteen (18) beneficiaries having without signature or any left thumb impression as also to seventy one (71) unidentified beneficiaries. 13. Since neither the decision of the District Magistrate to launch criminal case nor the criminal prosecution has been questioned in the writ application, we cannot go into the merits of the decision taken by the District Magistrate concerned. We do not find that any case has been made out to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. In the facts and circumstances, as stated above, we dismiss the appeal treating the same as on days list. 15. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the application for injunction becomes infructuous and the same is, also, dismissed. 16. We make no order as to costs.