Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 67 (MAN)

Chington Development Society v. Union of India

2021-11-08

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] Heard Shri Serto T. Kom, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No.1, Union of India and Shri Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent. [2] The validity and correctness of the letter dated 27-01-2021 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India is under challenge in this writ petition and in addition thereto, a prayer has been made to direct the Union of India to reconsider the case of the petitioner for the Ujjawala project based on the report of the State Government that there is no Ujjawala project in Senapati District, Manipur after its bifurcation into Senapati and Kangpokpi Districts, Manipur. [3.1] The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 with the objects of rendering service to the general society including the assistance to be provided to the Government towards the implementation of the programmes and projects contributing to progressive and total human development. [3.2] The Ujjawala scheme is a comprehensive scheme for Prevention of Trafficking and Rescue, Rehabilitation and Re-integration of victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. Only the selected voluntary Organisations/ NGOs are part of the agencies to implement the said scheme. On coming to know about the decision of the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India to set up Ujjawala home in all the districts of Manipur which do not have Ujjawala home during the year, 2019-20, the petitioner applied for the said project of Ujjawala home for the year 2019-2020, because Senapati District of Manipur within which the society is functioning, doesn't have Ujjawala home after the bifurcation of the said district into Senapati and Kangpokpi Districts vide notification/ order dated 08-12-2016 issued by the Government of Manipur. [3.3] Pursuant to the said application of the petitioner, the Project Sanctioning Committee for screening the project proposal for Grant-in-Aid under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister, Social Welfare, Manipur, held a meeting on 28-09-2019 and resolved to recommend eight Societies/ NGOs for various districts including the petitioner. The said proceeding of the committee dated 28-9-2019 was forwarded by the Government of Manipur to Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India vide its letter 28-09-2019. The said proceeding of the committee dated 28-9-2019 was forwarded by the Government of Manipur to Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India vide its letter 28-09-2019. Thereafter, the Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 24-12-2019 forwarded the required “Need Based Assessment Report”, in respect of the petitioner, wherein it is mentioned that there is not a single Ujjawala home in the entire district of Senapati, Manipur. [3.4] The Union of India vide its letter dated 20-03-2020 requested the Government of Manipur to furnish the details of the bifurcation of the erstwhile Senapati District into Senapati and Kangpokpi Districts, obviously, to ascertain the claim that there is no Ujjawala project in Senapati District for which the petitioner has been recommended. The Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 07-07-2020 sent a detailed report about bifurcation of Senapati District including a clarification that there is no Ujjawala project/ home in the present Senapati District and that the petitioner has been recommended by the Project Selection Committee (PSC) for Ujjawala home in the present Senapati District. [3.5] The Union of India vide its order/ letter dated 04-03-2020 conveyed the sanction of grant to NGOs for setting up Uijawala home in the new districts of Manipur but unfortunately, it failed to consider the case of the petitioner for the Senapati District, Manipur which also does not have an Ujjawala home. The petitioner made a representation dated 20- 07-2020 to the Union of India thereby requesting it to reconsider its case. As the Union of India failed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 20-07-2020, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.455 of 2020 wherein this Court passed an order dated 15-09-2020 and further, order dated 02-12-2020 in Review Petition No.14 of 2020 directing the Union of India to dispose of its representation dated 20-07-2020 within a period of two months therefrom. The Union of India, in compliance with this Court's orders, issued the order dated 27-01-2021 thereby disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 20-07-2020 and decided that it was not possible for it to approve the Ujjawala project to the petitioner without receiving the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee chaired by the Secretary (WCD), State of Manipur for year, 2020-21. The Union of India, in compliance with this Court's orders, issued the order dated 27-01-2021 thereby disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 20-07-2020 and decided that it was not possible for it to approve the Ujjawala project to the petitioner without receiving the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee chaired by the Secretary (WCD), State of Manipur for year, 2020-21. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 27-01- 2021, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the act of the Union of India was arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, discriminatory and non- application of mind in view of the fact that the petitioner's case for Ujjawala scheme was already recommended to the Union of India by the competent authority viz: Project Sanctioning Committee vide proceeding dated 28-09-2019 for the Senapati District, Manipur along with other NGO's for other districts of Manipur, through the covering letter dated 28-09-2019. The cases of other NG0's for Ujjawala which were recommended along with the petitioner, were considered by the Union of India after receiving the “Need Based Assessment Report” from the Government of Manipur but unfortunately, the case of the petitioner was left out on the pretext of seeking details of Ujjawala home after the bifurcation of Senapati District into Senapati and Kangpokpi Districts vide letter dated 20-03-2020. In fact, the Union of India was already informed that after the bifurcation of Senapati into two districts, there is no Ujjawala home in Senapati District, as can be seen at para (vi) of the Need Assessment Report of the newly Proposed Ujjawala project in the Senapati District vide letter dated 20-03-2020. [4.1] In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it has been stated that the Government of India is implementing the Ujjawala scheme which is a comprehensive scheme for prevention of trafficking with five specific components-Prevention, Rescue, Rehabilitation, Reintegration and Repatriation of victims of trafficking. The scheme has been conceived primarily for the purpose of preventing trafficking on the one hand and rescue and rehabilitation of victims on the other. The scheme has been conceived primarily for the purpose of preventing trafficking on the one hand and rescue and rehabilitation of victims on the other. The relevant portion of the scheme’s guidelines reads as under: “H. SANCTION OF NEW PROJECT UNDER THE SCHEME a. The State Government will assess the number of new projects required in the State and communicate to the Joint Secretary in charge of the Scheme in the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi along with justification by 30th September of every year. Subject to availability of resources, the Central Government will communicate number of projects those can be approved and make necessary provision in the budget of subsequent financial year. b. The State Government may invite applications from eligible organizations and the proposals which fulfill the norms may be placed before a Project Sanctioning Committee (PSC) chaired by Secretary (WCD) of the State/UT concerned and comprising representatives from the Finance and Labour Department of the State/UT in addition to any other representatives as the State Government /UT administration may decide. c. Grant of the Ujjawala Scheme is sanctioned initially for a period of 3(three) years. After implementation for 3(three) years period, the Project Sanctioning Committee may decide on its further continuance or otherwise depending on its performance and need” [4.2] In the financial year 2019-20, the Ministry received the proposals for 10 new Ujjawala projects, when there were already 19 Ujjawala homes functioning in the State. In some of the districts, there were already two existing projects functioning and when the State Government proposed for additional projects in these districts, in some of them the Ujjawala scheme was not being implemented. Therefore, it was considered to approve one project in each of the districts where there were no existing Ujjawala projects/ homes functioning. The districts where no Ujjawala project was functioning, were identified as Tengnoupal, Noney and Pherzwal Districts, Manipur and accordingly, it was proposed that the State Government should, from amongst the proposed projects, choose one NGO in each district of Tengnoupal, Noney and Pherzwal for implementation of Ujjawala scheme. It was also mentioned that the said three NGOs should be chosen on the basis of expertise in the area of prevention of human trafficking and experience. It was also mentioned that the said three NGOs should be chosen on the basis of expertise in the area of prevention of human trafficking and experience. As per the records, since there was an existing Ujjawala project in the Senapati District, none of the projects was approved for the Senapati District. The bifurcation of Senapati District was informed by the State Government later. Therefore, the name of Chington Development Society was not considered for sanction of new Ujjawala homes for the financial year, 2019-20. Subsequently, when the State Government vide its letter dated 07-07-2020 informed about the details of the bifurcation of Senapati District into two-Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts and also of two Ujjawala homes which were currently functioning, having fallen in the Kangpokpi District after bifurcation, they were requested vide this Ministry’s letter dated 15-07-2020 to furnish fresh Project Sanctioning Committee’s recommendation for the financial year, 2020-21 with requisite documents for new proposal in Senapati District. The response from the State Government is still awaited despite three reminders being sent to them. Since the Project Sanctioning Committee constituted in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Manipur recommended the project of the Chington Development Society for the financial year, 2019-20, the name of Chington Development Society was not considered for sanction of new Ujjawala home in the financial year, 2019-20. In other words, as per scheme guidelines, it was not possible for the Union of India to consider the Ujjawala project for the Chington Development Society without receiving the recommendation of duly constituted Project Sanctioning Committee chaired by the Secretary, Women and Child Development (WCD) of the State Government for the financial year, 2020-21. [5] The petitioner, in its rejoinder, has stated that the Union of India was already aware of the fact that Senapati District, after its bifurcation into Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts, has no Ujjawala project, as is evident from the letter dated 24-12-2019 of the State of Manipur enclosing the Need Assessment Report and therefore, the petitioner’s case could have been considered for the financial year, 2019-20 along with other NGOs being recommended by the State Government. As regards the fresh recommendation, it has been stated that as the Union of India was informed that there was no Ujjawala project in Senapati District, it could have approved it for sanctioning and that there was a failure on the part of the Union of India which shows that the Union of India was hell-bent not to consider the case of the petitioner. [6] The Ujjawala scheme is a comprehensive scheme launched by the Union of India for prevention of trafficking with five specific components- Prevention, Rescue, Rehabilitation, Reintegration and Repatriation of victims of trafficking. This Court is not aware of the details of the said scheme, as a copy of the scheme is not placed on record by any of the parties in the matter. In other words, this Court has no occasion to examine the details contained in the said scheme. But from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it is seen that it is the State Government which has to assess the number of new projects required in the State and communicate it to the Union of India along with justifications by 30th September of every year. The proposals received by the State Government which fulfill the norms, will have to be placed before a Project Sanctioning Committee (PSC) chaired by the Secretary (WCD) of the concerned State/ UT. On the basis of the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee and after having considered it, the grant of the Ujjawala scheme is sanctioned initially for a period of three years and after the implementation thereof for three years, the Project Sanctioning Committee may decide on its further continuance or otherwise depending on its performance and need. [7] In the present case, on the basis of the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee, the State Government proposed eight new projects for the year, 2019-20 including that of the petitioner. However, it is nowhere stated either in the covering letter dated 28-09-2019 or in the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee itself that an Ujjawala project was recommended for the Senapati District on the ground that it had no Ujjawala project, even though Senapati District had already been bifurcated into Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts in the year, 2016. However, it is nowhere stated either in the covering letter dated 28-09-2019 or in the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee itself that an Ujjawala project was recommended for the Senapati District on the ground that it had no Ujjawala project, even though Senapati District had already been bifurcated into Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts in the year, 2016. In the Need Assessment Report, it has been stated that in Senapati District, there is no Ujjawala funded by the Union of India but it is nowhere specifically stated therein that Senapati District, referred to therein, is not the old Senapati District but the new Senapati District after the old one being bifurcated into two districts in the year, 2016 which has led to the present confusion and controversy with the result that the sanction of grant vide letter dated 04-03-2020 was allocated to NGOs functioning in the districts i.e, Tengnoupal, Noney and Pherzwal only. In other words, the State Government appears to have not informed the Union of India earlier in clear terms that there is no Ujjawala scheme in the Senapati District after the bifurcation. Therefore, the State Government appears to have written a letter dated 13-03-2020 to the Union of India informing about the bifurcation of Senapati District as is evident from the letter dated 20-03- 2020 of the Union of India whereby it had requested the State Government to provide details of their sub-divisions which the State Government did it vide its letter dated 07-07-2020. On receipt thereof, the Union of India vide its letter dated 15-07-2020 requested the State Government to furnish a fresh recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee. [8] The stand of the Union of India as expressed in its affidavit, is that since no fresh recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee was furnished by the State Government as requested with three reminders, it was not possible for it to approve and grant Ujjawala project to the petitioner. From the materials placed on record, it is not clear as to whether the Union of India was aware of the bifurcation of Senapati District into Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts before the said eight new projects being proposed by the State Government. From the materials placed on record, it is not clear as to whether the Union of India was aware of the bifurcation of Senapati District into Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts before the said eight new projects being proposed by the State Government. In the affidavit filed on its behalf, it has been stated that as per the record, Ujjawala projects were found to be functioning in Senapati District, which had, in fact, fallen in the area of Kangpokpi District after the said bifurcation. Therefore, the present controversy may have probably arisen due to lack of proper communication and co-ordination between the Union of India and the State Government. Whatever may have been the reason for the controversy, it is the petitioner which has ultimately suffered loss and injury without its fault. Since no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government, it is not known to this Court as to why it failed to furnish a fresh recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee for the year, 2020- 21. Had a fresh recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee for the year, 2020-21 been furnished by the State Government in time, the present controversy could have been avoided and the petitioner’s case could have been considered by the Union of India for the year, 2020-21 itself. [9] Leave aside the year, 2020-21 which is already over, the current financial year, 2021-22 is also coming to an end in few months. What is going to be the fate of the petitioner for the year, 2021-22, is quite uncertain because the stand of the State Government is not disclosed to this Court in the form of an affidavit. It may be noted at this juncture that in fact, the petitioner cannot, as of right, claim that it be granted Ujjawala project by the Union of India and in terms of the guidelines as stated in the affidavit of the Union of India, the grant of Ujjawala project depends upon the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee. However, the State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably and it is the State Government which has to constitute it, cannot remain silent but to take an appropriate decision in that regard. However, the State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably and it is the State Government which has to constitute it, cannot remain silent but to take an appropriate decision in that regard. It is the Project Sanctioning Committee which has to examine the proposals and take a decision considering various factors either to recommend or not to recommend an NGO like the petitioner for grant of Ujjawala project. The unfortunate part is that the case of the petitioner has not been considered for the year, 2020-21 by the Union of India for want of fresh recommendation. In any case, the fact remains that Senapati District, after the bifurcation, has no Ujjawala project and has a right to be considered by the Government of India provided its case is recommended by the Project Sanctioning Committee on merit. In other words, in order to consider the case of the petitioner by the Union of India, a recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee is indispensable. It may further be noted that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Project Sanctioning Committee for the year, 2019-20 mainly on the ground that there is no, at present after the bifurcation in the year, 2016, Ujjawala home in Senapati District and the circumstances prevailing in Senapati District, at that time, appear to remain unchanged till date. [10] In view of the above and for the reason stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions: (a) The respondent No.2, State of Manipur shall constitute a Project Sanctioning Committee, if not already constituted, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, which will examine the proposal in respect of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter and in the event of the petitioner’s case being recommended by the Project Sanctioning Committee, its recommendation shall be sent by the State Government, at the earliest possible, to the Government of India for consideration; (b) After the receipt of the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee from the State Government, the respondent No.1, Union of India shall consider the case of the petitioner within three weeks therefrom and take a decision, accordingly, by granting Ujjawala project in favour of the petitioner for the year, 2021-22.