Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 170 (GAU)

Bilal Ahmed Hazari v. State of Assam

2017-02-08

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioners being the local residents of Narayanpur-Tupkhana Gaon Panchayat under Hailakandi District are aggrieved inasmuch as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme/Act (MGNREGA) has not been implemented in a proper manner, leading to deprivation of its benefits to the petitioners and other similarly situated local residents of the area. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the scheme, the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi on 8.1.2016 had accorded sanction of a total amount of Rs. 99,22,250 for the works of construction of CC Road from National Highway road to Samirun Nessa house at Narainpur-III and construction of Gramin Janapath starting from Abdul Motin house to Doleswari river at Narainpur-III under the Narainpur-Tupkhana Gaon Panchayat. It is the allegation that the members of the Anchalik Panchayat without informing the Gaon Panchayat and without completing the required works as provided under the guidelines of the scheme, had submitted bills with the intention to misappropriate the funds. 3. To that effect, the petitioners have filed representations dated 29.8.2016 and 19.9.2016 before the Block Development Officer, Hailakandi Block and the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the aforesaid representations being filed highlighting the irregular activities, the said authorities have not taken any measure to give due consideration to the representations of the petitioners. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Centre for Environment and Food Security v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 676, wherein in paragraph 16, it had been provided that the Central or the State Government has wide powers and they have to ensure that there is proper utilization of funds allocated and in the event of any misappropriation or siphoning off of such funds, the Central or the State Governments shall not only examine such complaints but is commanded by law to stop the financing to such scheme and take remedial measures immediately. 4. 4. In such view of the matter, as agreed by the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the aforesaid representations of the petitioners be given a due consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi and upon considering the same, cause an enquiry as to the allegations made by the petitioners and for the purpose, if necessary by giving a hearing to the petitioners and thereafter, pass a reasoned speaking order on the same. As provided by the hon'ble Supreme Court, if upon enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner comes to a conclusion that there is or there is likelihood of any misappropriation, appropriate remedial measures to be taken thereafter. 5. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.