Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1128 (ALL)

Jai Shankar Tiwari v. State of U. P.

2016-03-30

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT The relief which has been claimed in these proceedings is for the disposal of an application dated 6 November 2015 and a further application dated 5 December 2015 submitted by the petitioner to the second, third and fourth respondents for making an arrangement for re-boring. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that by a Government Order dated 18 May 2004, the State introduced a scheme for providing medium level irrigation facilities. Under the guidelines, a subsidy of Rs.85,000/- was provided towards boring and distribution system by the Government to the agriculturists. The petitioner moved an application on 10 May 2013 for the purpose of survey and after the survey was conducted, an estimate was furnished to the petitioner on the basis of which, he deposited an amount of Rs.45,000/-. On 23 September 2013, directions were issued to the fourth respondent to carry out the work of boring and the work of drilling commenced on 27 September 2013 and continued until 29 September 2013. After the work of boring was carried out, according to the State, the boring development process was conducted. On 1 October 2013, the petitioner issued a satisfaction certificate upon which the boring was transferred to the petitioner on 3 October 2013. On 3 December 2013, the petitioner moved an application before the second respondent for the purpose of obtaining an electric connection in which he stated that he was satisfied with the boring done. 3. According to the State, the petitioner filed an application on 5 December 2014 almost a year later for issuance of a power connection. Thereafter it was only on 6 November 2015 that the petitioner made certain complaints in regard to the failure of the boring done by the department. Pursuant to this, the Assistant Engineer directed the Junior Engineer to inspect the boring pump. The site was inspected and a report was submitted on 21 December 201. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been submitted that in terms of a Government Order dated 20 November 2012, if the boring has been used continuously for one season and has continued to work without any complaint for six months, any complaint made by the cultivator beyond the said period would not be treated as a failure of the boring mechanism. 4. 4. In the present case, it has been submitted that the complaint was made in November 2015 after the boring was used for two years. Hence, it has been submitted that there is no substance in the complaint. 5. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the boring which was carried out originally was faulty and that defective materials were used. On the other hand, the defence of the State as we have recorded above is that boring was carried out satisfactorily and was duly certified by the petitioner himself. 6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is an agriculturist, we are of the view that the ends of justice would require that sufficient steps should be taken to scrutinize the grievance of the petitioner and to remedy the same. For this purpose, we direct the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Allahabad to personally visit the site within a period of one week from today and to carry out a scrutiny of the grievance of the petitioner. Thereafter, such action as is necessary to remedy the grievance should be taken expeditiously and preferably within one month after completion of the scrutiny. The petitioner shall cooperate in all respects so as to ensure an early disposal of his grievance in accordance with law. 7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.