Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8033 of 2012 ====================================================== Ram Naresh Singh S/O Late Jamun Singh R/O Vill. + P.O.- Maudah, P.S.- Patepur, Distt.- Vaishali (Secretary, Sarvoday Samaj Kalyan Sansthan, Maudah, Patepur, Vaishali) Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, DRDA, Vaishali 6. The Director, Accounts Administration And Self Employment, DRDA, Vaishali 7. The Block Development Officer, Patepur 8. The Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Vaishali 9. The Union Of India Through the Secretary,Ministry Of Rural Development (Deptt. Of Land Resources), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 10. The Addl. Secretary, Ministry Of Rural Development, G. Wing, N.B.O. Building, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 12 21-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the Union of India. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the letter dated 8.10.2004 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, by which the Sarvodaya Samaj Kalyan Sansthan, Maudah, Patepur, Vaishali has been deleted from the letter dated 21.1.2004 of the Rural Development Department in the Government of India
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.8033 of 2012 (12) dt.21-08-2013 2 approved project proposal. The petitioner claims to be the Secretary of the aforesaid Sarvodaya Kalyan Sansthan. The short facts of the case are that the N.G.O. of the petitioner, namely, Sarvodaya Kalyan Sansthan was nominated as the Project Implementation Agency (PIA) by the D.R.D.A.,Vaishali for IWDP and by letter dated 20.2.2013 of the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Project Director, DRDA, Vaishali addressed to the Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioner was nominated by the Zila Parishad/DRDA as the P.I.A. with respect to Watershed Development Project, IWDP Scheme-1 regarding an area of 2,500 hectares with a request that the same be forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Land Resources. The same was duly forwarded on 7.3.2003 and by letter dated 30.7.2003 of the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Land Resources the approval to the Implementation of Project under IWDP in Patepur Block, Vaishali was given for an area of 5000 Hectares of wastelands at a total cost of Rs.3,00,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Crores) out of which Rs.275/- Lacs was the Central share and Rs.25,00,000/- was State share. It was further stated that the expenditure for implementation Patna High Court CWJC No.8033 of 2012 (12) dt.21-08-2013 3 of the project would be incurred for a period of five years from the date of its sanction as per Guidelines for Hariyali. In paragraph No.5 of the said letter, it was clearly mentioned that the D.R.D.A.concerned shall appoint the Intermediate Panchayat concerned as the Project Implementing Agency (PIA) as per provisions at para 9 of the Guidelines for Hariyali, failing which the Zila Panchayat itself may act as the PIA to the instant project or may appoint a suitable Government Agency as PIA; however, no Non-Governmental Organization should be appointed as PIA for implementation of the project without prior permission and approval of the Department of Land Resources. Subsequently, by the impugned letter dated 8.10.2004 of the Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development Department after taking note of Hariyali Guidelines,2003 and paragraph 5 of the approval letter dated 30.7.2003 of the Government of India, the aforesaid impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.4125 of 2005 which was dismissed in default for non-appearance on 19.5.2011. The petitioner applied for restoration by filing M.J.C. No.4393 of
Decision
2011, which was disposed of with the observation that on account of the long passage of time, the petitioner may file a fresh writ Patna High Court CWJC No.8033 of 2012 (12) dt.21-08-2013 4 petition. Thereafter, the present writ application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been appointed as the PIA, the impugned letter dated 8.10.2004 is not at all tenable and the petitioner could not have been removed or its name could not have been deleted as P.I.A. for the said project. In support of the same, learned counsel relies upon another letter dated 21.1.2004 of the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar addressed to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali (Hajipur) in which the petitioner has been shown as the Government recognized PIA in the project proposal approved by the Central Government. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the impugned letter is in accord with the guidelines laid down in the Hariyali Scheme as also the letter dated 30.7.2003 of the Government of India approving the Project which clearly stated the fact that an NGO could be appointed as PIA only with the prior approval of the Land Resources Department in the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and not otherwise. It is further submitted that even under the Hariyali Guidelines, 2003, the Zila Panchayat may act as PIA in the first Patna High Court CWJC No.8033 of 2012 (12) dt.21-08-2013 5 place and thereafter several alternatives have been given and only as a last resort, an NGO can be appointed as a PIA. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the letter dated 21.1.2004 is concerned, the same can be of no effect as the impugned letter dated 8.10.2004 itself has been issued in order to correct the factual error in the earlier letter dated 21.1.2004 of the Secretary and it is the very part of the earlier letter on which the petitioner relies which has been deleted from the said letter; that is the entire import of the impugned letter dated 8.10.2004. So far as the merit of the matter is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that at any stage the NGO of the petitioner had been approved by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, that being the pre-condition laid down in paragraph No.5 of the sanction letter itself and thus it was not open to either the said authorities or the DRDA to have taken any action which was contrary to the said sanction letter. Thus, the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as a validly appointed PIA by deleting the words from the letter dated 21.1.2004 cannot be considered to be contrary to either the Hariyali Guidelines or Patna High Court CWJC No.8033 of 2012 (12) dt.21-08-2013 6 the pre-condition regarding prior approval as contained in the letter dated 30.7.2003 of the Government of India. In the aforesaid view of the matter, no vested right of the petitioner has been taken away by the respondents nor any illegality has been committed by issuing the letter dated 8.10.2004 and the consequential letters issued subsequently. The writ application is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. V.P.Sinha/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)