Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1732 (GAU)

Anamul Hoque Laskar v. State of Assam

2018-12-12

A.S.BOPANNA, ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI

body2018
JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned additional senior government advocate, Assam for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this court in this petition claiming to be in public interest. In the petition, the petitioner seeks that respondent No. 6 be directed to hold Gaon Sabha in Neairgram Baghpur Gaon Panchayat in accordance with the order contained in the letter dated 31.10.2015. In that regard, it is contended that such Gaon Sabha is required to re-verify the list and extend NFSA benefits. The petitioner in that regard is contending that the provisions as contained in the National Food Security Act, 2013 (‘NFSA, 2013’) provides for preparation of list of beneficiaries. The allegation is that though a Gaon Sabha is to be convened and, thereafter, the list is required to be finalized, the procedure was not followed. The petitioner alleges inclusion of certain government pensioners, government employees, persons belonging to creamy layers as also the family members of the leading citizens of the Gaon Panchayat in the list of beneficiaries. It is, therefore, contended that the list is prepared by violating the Rules of NFSA, 2013. It is with such allegation that the petitioner is seeking that a direction be issued to convene the Gaon Sabha and re-verify the list and prepare an appropriate list in that regard. 3. Having taken note of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, we notice that except making statements with regard to the allegations in the petition, neither specific details of the excluded persons nor with regard to persons who have been wrongly included, had been indicated. The representation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.9.2015 prior to the filing of the instant petition also does not indicate the details except making vague allegations to that effect. In that view, we are of the opinion that in a public interest petition of the present nature, this court is not expected to make a roving enquiry and fish for details merely because a petition has been filed before this court. In that view, we are of the opinion that in a public interest petition of the present nature, this court is not expected to make a roving enquiry and fish for details merely because a petition has been filed before this court. Though we appreciate the intention of the petitioner in taking up the cause, the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to make a composite representation to the competent authority indicating the instances of non-inclusion of the persons who should have been otherwise beneficiaries for the benefits under the Act and if the contention of the petitioner that certain persons who are not entitled to be included in the list is to be established, specific instances of such persons in the list is to be referred. We reserve the liberty for the petitioner to make representation to the competent authority in that regard. If details are furnished in the representation by the petitioner, the competent authority shall take note of the same and take appropriate action, if need arises to do so. However, on taking note of the representation, if the competent authority is of the opinion that no action is called for, appropriate intimation be issue to the petitioner in that regard. 4. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.