Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1060 (ORI)

Shishir Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

2017-09-15

S.K.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the District Level Committee of Nayagarh District under Gopabandhu Gramin Yojana Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “GGY Scheme” for brevity) for the year 2015-2016 in respect of Khandpada Block without following the Guidelines for GGY Scheme published by the Government of Odisha, Panchayati Raj Department. 2. The GGY Scheme was managed by the Government of Odisha in the year 2006-07 with a view to provide additional developmental assistance to the districts not covered under the Backward Regions Grant Fund(hereinafter referred to as “BRGF” for brevity). It is being implemented in ten districts of Odisha. Since the BRGF has been discontinued from 2015-2016, infrastructure of all districts continues to be weak. Hence the Government of Odisha took a decision to extend the GGY Scheme to all thirty districts of the State from the financial year 20152016, for which guidelines have been issued, which is at Annexure-1. 3. The basic arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the guidelines appeared at page 19 of the brief, especially 7.5 provides that the BDO will consolidate the GP wise list and submit it to Panchayat Samiti, the Panchayat Samiti will compile the list and send it with its recommendations/views to the District Collector preferably by 1st week of December each year. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of doing that the District Level Committee has expanded money for about Rupees Two Crores as per the directions given by the local M.L.A. Hence, it is prayed that Annexure-12 be quashed and a mandamus be issued to opposite party no.2-the District Level Committee to approve the list of the Project Proposal under GGY Scheme for the year 2015-2016. 4. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit have pleaded that the BDO, Khandapada submitted project proposals under GGY Scheme for the year 2015-2016 vide Letter No.3341 dated 298.12.2015 and Letter No.3320 dated 29.12.2015, which were placed before the District Level Committee on 30.12.2015 for consideration. The District Level Committee finalized Fifty-one (51) projects for an amount of Rs.80.50 lakhs (Eighty Lakhs Fifty Thousand) as per Para No.7.7 of the circular issued by the Government of Odisha, Panchayati Raj Department. The District Level Committee finalized Fifty-one (51) projects for an amount of Rs.80.50 lakhs (Eighty Lakhs Fifty Thousand) as per Para No.7.7 of the circular issued by the Government of Odisha, Panchayati Raj Department. Hence, the assertion that opposite party no.4 received a letter from opposite party no.3 in the month of January, 2016 does not arise. It is further put forth by the opposite parties that the GGY Scheme for the year 20-15-2016 was sent to the Project Director, DRDA, Nayagarh, which had been duly approved in Palli Sabha/Grama Sabha and Panchayat Samiti meeting held on 27.11.2015. The same was considered in DLC meeting held on 30.12.2015. No fresh proposal or modified proposal was sent after 29.12.2015 as the proposal had already been put up before the District Level Committee on 30.12.2015. Hence the question of Panchayat Samiti meeting resolution dtd.10.2.2016 does not arise. It is further pleaded that the M.L.A., Khandapada had submitted the list of proposal to the Collector, Nayagarh and not to opposite party no.4, the B.D.O. However, a copy of the same had already been submitted by the M.L.A. Khandapada to opposite party no.4 on 22.12.2015, which was forwarded to DLC after verification vide Letter No.3341 dated 29.12.2015. The copy of the same is at ASnnexure-A/4. It was further clarified that the finalization of list of project to be taken under GGY Scheme vests with the District Level Committee. If the DLC does not agree with any project(s) to be taken up, it may select any other project(s) out of the list of projects approved in the Palli Sabha/Grama Sabha with sufficient reasons. Accordingly, the DLC has approved 51 (fifty one) projects which are in the Palli Sabha/Grama Sabha keeping in view the local conditions, the requirement of the people and greater interest of the public. In the mean time, notice has been issued to all Grama Panchayats to conduct Palli Sabha for selection of V.L.L. for execution of the above projects. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. In the mean time, notice has been issued to all Grama Panchayats to conduct Palli Sabha for selection of V.L.L. for execution of the above projects. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. A careful examination of the guidelines in the light of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen in para-7.5 that the BDO will consolidate the GP wise list and submit it to Panchayat Samiti, the Panchayat Samiti will compile the list and send it with its recommendations/views to the District Collector preferably by 1st week of December each year. Para-7.7 of the guidelines provides that the finalization of list of projects to be taken up under GGY vests with the District Level Committee. If the DLC does not agree with any project(s) to be taken up, it may select any other project(s) out of the list of projects finalized in the Palli Sabha/Grama Sabha with sufficient reason. It is therefore seen that the provision enabling the B.D.O. to consolidate the GP wise list and send it with its recommendation to the District Collector is not binding on the District Level Committee. It is admitted that the District Level Committee has found out 51 projects out of the list of projects finalized in the Palli Sabha/Grama Sabha with sufficient reasons. Such assertion has not been traversed by the petitioner nor the petitioner shows that the District Level Committee has acted in an arbitrary manner and without sufficient reason has chosen to take up 51 projects out of the list. Only because the local M.L.A. submitted certain proposals that does not mean that the District Level Committee will take of their cases only because of a political figure has recommended it. Though the scheme do not specify about the role of the M.L.A, the Local M.L.A. being the peoples representative may also be consulted in such situation. 6. This Court finds no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.