High Court
Case Details
PIL 37/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (A.K.Goel, C.J.) The issue raised in this petition by way of PIL relates to inaction of t he State in the matter of misappropriation of public fund. According to the petitioner, work of Harish Nagar Nala FIS (Flow Irrigat ion Scheme) under Hailakandi Irrigation Department, Hailakandi was allotted to R espondent No.7 and without due execution of some of the works, payments were mad e in collusion with the concerned officers.
Legal Reasoning
When the petition first came up for hearing on 19.6.2012, following orde The grievance in this petition is that the officers of the Irrigation De r was passed : (cid:28) partment in collusion with Respondent No.7 contractor had misappropriated more t han Rs.4 crores meant for construction of approach road under Hailakandi Divisio n. The Senior Grade Junior J.E. I..C., Harish Nagar Nala F.I.S. gave a report to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Katlicherra Sub-Division Irrigation Sahabad, Katlicherra, but the same has been ignored. Having regard to the nature of the allegation, we are of the view that t he matter can, in the first instance, be dealt with at the higher echelon of the State.
Decision
Accordingly, we direct the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigat ion Department to look into the matter and file his affidavit before the next da te. List again on 18th October, 2012. (cid:29) As is clear from the above order, the Court was, in the first instance, inclined only to ask the higher authority in the State to look into and deal wit h the matter. In view of the above order, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Ir rigation Department looked into the mater and filed an affidavit dated 15.11.201 2 and stated that there was shortfall in the execution of the work. Site inspect ions were carried out and Respondent No.7 was given opportunity to rectify the d efects. A report dated 12.11.2012 was received from the Additional Chief Enginee r alleging misappropriation and the Department proposed to take further follow u p actions. Further affidavit dated 1.2.2013 was filed stating that there were la pses on the part of the contractor and the officers. Accordingly on 4.2.2013, following order was passed : (cid:28) A further affidavit has been filed on 01.02.2013 by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Irrigation Department, again failing to give information about the proposed date by which contemplated action against erring officials will be completed. Learned counsel for the State, however, states that all contemplated act ions which have been initiated will be completed on or before 30th April, 2013. In view of above, we defer the proceedings to May 15, 2013. It is made c lear if actions remain incomplete even by the next date, the Secretary, Irrigati on Department, may remain present in person. (cid:29) We have been informed by learned counsel for the State that action has n ot been finalized as undertaken. The Secretary, Irrigation Department is present in person. As prayed, we grant time till the next date to complete whatever action is necessary, includi ng registration of criminal case against those found involved in misappropriatio n of public money. List for further consideration on 19th June, 2013. The Secretary, Irrigation Department may remain present on the next date also. (cid:29) Thereafter, on 15.5.2013, following order was passed : (cid:28) (cid:28) On 4.2.2013, following order was passed:- A further affidavit has been filed on 01.02.2013 by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Irrigation Department, again failing to give information about the proposed date by which contemplated action against erring officials will be completed. Learned counsel for the State, however, states that all contemplated act ions which have been initiated will be completed on or before 30th April, 2013. In view of above, we defer the proceedings to May 15, 2013. It is made c lear if actions remain incomplete even by the next date, the Secretary, Irrigati on Department, may remain present in person. (cid:29) We have been informed by learned counsel for the State that action has n ot been finalized as undertaken. The Secretary, Irrigation Department is present in person. As prayed, we grant time till the next date to complete whatever action is necessary, includi ng registration of criminal case against those found involved in misappropriatio n of public money. List for further consideration on 19th June, 2013. The Secretary, Irrigation Department may remain present on the next date also. (cid:29) When the matter has been taken up for hearing today, we have been inform ed that an application has been filed on behalf of the State seeking extension o f time by two months to complete the action initiated by the Department. The act ion initiated includes disciplinary proceedings against erring officers and othe r appropriate action against the contractor including lodging of the FIR. The ac tion so initiated is, as per opinion of the Department, without this Court havin g expressed any opinion in the order dated 15.5.2013. Thus, even though we had not issued notice to the officers/contractor ag ainst whom allegations were made, having regard to the fact that we have not ent ered upon adjudication of the question whether the officers/ contractor were res ponsible for the misappropriation in these proceedings, Respondents No.3 and 4, who are the concerned officers, and Respondent No.7, who was the contractor, see k to put in appearance with a view to contest the allegation. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We may first deal with the objection raised on behalf of Respondents No. 3, 4 and 7 that they were entitled to be heard in the matter by this Court befor e the State could take any departmental or other proceedings against them. Relia nce has been placed on behalf of Respondent No.3 on judgment of the Hon’ble Supr eme Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha and others -Vs.- State of Sikkim and others, (201 0) 4 SCC 513 in support of the submission that no direction for prosecution coul d be issued by the Court and instead the aggrieved parties should be left to app roach the investigating agency. It was also submitted that no misappropriation w as involved and the time for completion of the work had been extended and almost entire work had been completed in which case proceedings initiated by the Depar tment are not called for. We are of the view that since at this stage, this Court is not adjudicat ing upon the issue on merits and it is only inclined to ask the concerned Depart ment to look into the matter and take further action as may be found appropriate , it is not necessary to give any hearing to Respondents No.3, 4 and 7. If they are aggrieved by the action taken against them, they will be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of making direction to look in to the matter and take such action as may be found necessary by the Department a bsolute without prejudice to the right of the affected parties taking their reme dies in accordance with law.