Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 513 (GAU)

Rahim Uddin Laskar v. State of Assam

2019-04-26

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4. Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioners who are 42 in numbers have approached this Court with a common cause of action for release of the financial assistance meant for them under a scheme formulated by the State. As per the said scheme published by notification dated 30.10.2015, the State Government had accorded an approval to the guideline named "CMs Special Scheme Financial Assistance Available for construction of one lakh twenty six thousands dwelling houses for homeless people @ Rs. 25,000/- each (800 nos. of beneficiaries from general category and 200 nos. from minority community for the year 2015-2016." Under the aforesaid scheme for 126 Nos. of Assembly Constituency in the State of Assam the aforesaid financial assistance was to be given to homeless BPL people. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were amongst the selected beneficiaries in the No. 10 Sonai Constituency in the District of Cachar along with others. However, at the time of disbursement/release of amount under the scheme, the petitioner along with few others could not get the benefit of the same due to certain discrepancies in their bank accounts and accordingly the petitioners were notified of the same. Accordingly, the petitioners had submitted their corrected bank details and were awaiting release/disbursement of the amount in question. In the meantime the General Election for the year 2016 was held which led to an impasse. The approach of the petitioners having failed to yield any response, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Shri M.H. Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no denial on the entitlement of the petitioners and it is only by lapse of time and because of intervening general election, the matter was unnecessary delayed. It is the further contention that denial of the amount to the petitioner has resulted in a discriminatory action which calls for interference by this Court. It is the further contention that denial of the amount to the petitioner has resulted in a discriminatory action which calls for interference by this Court. Shri Laskar has also brought to the notice of this Court the interim order passed on 19.09.2016 wherein the following observations were made: "Until further orders, the respondents are directed not to prepare/approve any new Beneficiary List of Dwelling Houses for LA-10 Sonai, Cachar and also not to utilize/disburse the money meant for the financial assistance of the petitioners in respect of any other scheme till the disposal of the petition." 5. In view of the aforesaid observations, the learned counsel submits that there should not be any impediment for the State to release the amount to the petitioners which are meant for them. 6. Shri M. Nath, the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department on the other hand submits that due to communication gap, there was delay in communicating the Department about the stay order for which the money in question was refunded back to the Finance Department as part of the unutilised funds. However, the learned counsel fairly admits that communication gap would not be a reason for denial of justice to the petitioners. Referring to the affidavit Mr. Nath has fairly admitted that there is no denial of the entitlement of the petitioners in the said affidavit. 7. Shri R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department on the other hand submits that presently the said scheme is replaced by other scheme and on discontinuation of the scheme in question the entitlement of the petitioners of the same becomes questionable. He however fairly submits that in the event of any direction from the Court, the money have to be made available to the parent department, namely, P&RD Department so that the same may be released /disbursed to the petitioners. Shri Borpujari further submits that the money in question was released under a particular Head and depending upon its availability and the Head may not be available today. 8. Ms. Bora, the learned State Counsel endorses the submission of the learned Standing Counsels of the respective departments. 9. The respective submissions made by the learned counsels have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been examined. 8. Ms. Bora, the learned State Counsel endorses the submission of the learned Standing Counsels of the respective departments. 9. The respective submissions made by the learned counsels have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been examined. From the materials available and on hearing the parties it becomes clear that there is no denial to the effect that the petitioners were amongst the selected beneficiaries of the scheme in question and it was only due to certain technical reasons that the matter of release/disbursement of the amount to the petitioners was delayed. It also appears that due to the intervening election in the mean time the matter was further delayed and due to certain communication gap in communicating the interim order of 19.09.2016 of this Court the money was refunded back to the Finance Department. This Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioners are amongst the selected beneficiaries, denying them the benefit would amount to discrimination vis-a-vis other beneficiaries as technical reasons in the form of discrepancies in the bank account should not come into the way of disbursement of the amount which is for a public purpose. 10. In view of the above the instant writ petition is allowed. The Finance Department is directed to make available of the amount in question which was refunded by the parent department as unutilised funds. Subsequently, the parent department, namely, the P&RD Department would take steps to release the amount in question to the petitioners respectively after proper identification. The entire exercises as directed above has to be undertaken and completed within a period of 3 (three) months from today. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dispose of.