High Court · 2012

The subject matter of the petitioners’ case relates to the allocation of fund under the scheme of District Development Plan under Dhubri Zilla Parishad for the year 2010-11. The petitioners are the elected Presidents of various Gaon Panchayats namely Kalapani, Baghapara, Pankata, Fekamari and Kukurmara respecti vely and out of the aforesaid Gaon Panchayats, two Gaon Panchayats namely Pankat a and Kukurmara are villages with majority ST and SC community members respectiv ely. By letter dated 03.06.2010, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of As sam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department had informed all the Chief Execu tive Officers of different Zilla Parishad asking them to submit the list of Dist rict Development Plan Schemes. Accordingly the Chief Executive Officer, Dhubri Z illa Parishad has issued a letter dated 09.08.2010 along with the probable list of Gaon Panchayats for allocation of fund wherein the names of petitioners’ Gaon Panchayats have been figured and instructed to submit the schemes before him. A ccordingly the petitioners have submitted the schemes along with the resolutions of Gram Sabha meeting to the Dhubri Zilla Parishad through their respective Anc halic Panchayats. Thereafter, the respondent No.6 i.e., the Chief Executive Offi cer, Dhubri Zilla Parishad have prepared an action plan dated Nil (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) by allotting the amount against each Gaon Panchayats for Dis trict Development Plan (Gaon Panchayat’s share) 2010-11 under Dhubri Zilla Paris had wherein the names of the petitioners’ Gaon Panchayat have been dropped/omitt ed without assigning any valid reason thereon. The petitioners’ further case is that they are entitled for the same benefits as provided to other Gaon Panchayat s under Dhubri Zilla Parishad. Hence the instant writ petition with the aforesai d prayer. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No.6 i.e., the C hief Executive Officer, Dhubri Zilla Parishad contending, inter alia, that the w rit petitioners have submitted their respective action plan to the Dhubri Zilla Parishad which has placed all action plan before the meeting of DPC held on 27.0 9.2010. The DPC scrutinized the plan and finalized the action plans of the Gaon Panchayats as per direction given by the Government of Assam. The schemes have b een finalized from the Gaon Panchayats mentioned in the writ petition which were afterwards submitted before the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development, Govt. of Assam on 07.10.2010. But the Govt. of Assam returned the same and sent a WT Message on 10.01.2011 with instruction to the Zilla Parishad, Dhubri for mo difying the scheme involving religious institutions which were included in the a ction plan and furnish fresh proposal immediately. Accordingly fresh/modified pr oposals were submitted on 24.01.2011 but as per Government of Assam letter dated 14.02.2011. Schemes have not been approved by the Govt. of Assam which are invo lved in religious institutions and therefore, the schemes submitted by the writ petitioner Gaon Panchayats were not approved by the Govt. of Assam coming under above criteria and the allotted fund of the Gaon Panchayats were lapsed as these were not in conformity with Govt. guidelines. It has further been contended tha t action plan of the writ petitioners’ Gaon Panchayat were related to religious institutions and therefore the Government did not approve the schemes.

4. To the affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the respondent No.6, an affid avit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioners, wherein at parag raphs 4 and 6 it has been contended as thus: (cid:28)4. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 7 of the affidav it-in-opposition, the deponent partly denies the same and begs to state that the deponent along with the other writ petitioners as per the Govt. instruction hav e convened the Gram Sabha meeting of their respective Gaon Panchayats wherein th e schemes under District Development Plan have been selected/prepared for the ye ar 2010-2011 of their respective Gaon Panchayats and submitted before the Chief Executive Officer, Dhubri Zilla Parishad through their respective Anchalic Panch ayat and the schemes approved by the Gaon Sabha already have annexed in the writ petition as Annexure-4 series. The petitioner No.3’s GP namely Pankata GP has s ubmitted the schemes at GP level other than the religious institutions, while th e petitioner No.4’s GP has submitted only one Scheme i.e., for construction of R oad and petitioner No.5’s GP has submitted only two schemes i.e., (1) Drinking w ater supply covering Hand Pump Tube well of 20 Nos. set and (2) Construction of Market shed at Fekamari Daily Bazar as such the respondent No.6 as stated in his affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners have submitted only religious sche mes is completely false and fabricated story as to deprive the petitioners’ GP f rom the aforesaid District Developmemnt plan. It is also pertinent to mention he re that from the impugned action plan for DDP (GP share) 2010-11 dated nil (Anne xure-5 to the writ petition) which have been approved by the Government, it reve als that in some of the GP’s namely Purandiara GP, Manullapara GP and Kathalbari GP have provided fund to religious institutions as such the stand taken by the respondent No.6 in his affidavit-in-opposition is completely false fabricated an d trying to mislead this Hon’ble Court which is not admissible. (cid:29) (cid:28)6.That with regard to the statement made in paragraph No.10 of the affi davit-in-opposition the deponent denies the same and referred the precedent para graph No.4 of this affidavit-in-reply and further begs to state that the schemes submitted by the writ petitioners it reveals that in some of the petitioners’ G P there are several schemes including the religious schemes and in some of the G Ps there are no any schemes involving religious institutions and as such the sta tement made in the affidavit-in-opposition without going through materials avail able in the writ petition are false fabricated and concocted and such contention s have been raised only to deprive the petitioners’ GP from the benefits of the aforesaid District Development Plan (cid:29).

5. Also heard Mr. HK Barman, learned State counsel for the respondents. I have heard Mr.UK Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

6. At the very outset, Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner has sub mitted that this Court vide order dated 29.09.2011 has passed an interim order d irecting the respondents to keep an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) only apart. Mr. Nair has further submitted that as per statements made on oath in the writ petition as well as at Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the rejoinder affidavit , it would reveal that schemes submitted by the petitioners also include the fol lowing schemes which are not related to the religious schemes, viz: Drinking water supply Construction of market shed etc.

1. 2.

7. It has also been submitted by Mr. Nair that aggrieved by the inaction of the authority the petitioners have submitted a representation before the Commis sioner to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department on 09.0 9.2011 praying therein for allocation of DPC fund for the year 2010-11 to the re spective Gaon Panchayat, however, the said representation has not been disposed of till date and as the same has evoked no response from the respondent authorit y the petitioners finding no other alternatives have approached this Court by fi ling the instant writ petition with the prayer mentioned hereinabove.

8. I have perused the statements made in the writ petition as well as the c ounter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the respective parties. In view of the pleaded facts, Mr. Nair has submitted that a direction may be issue d to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural D evelopment Department to dispose of the representation within a time frame.

9. no objection. In view of the submission so made, the learned State counsel has raised

10. Considering the matter in its entirety and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, also the grievance raised in the writ peti tion, the respondent No.1 i.e., the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of A ssam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department is directed to dispose of the r epresentation submitted by the petitioners within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. While disposing the re presentation, the respondent No.1 would also take into consideration the stateme nts made on oath in the writ petition as well as the rejoinder affidavit filed b y the petitioners. The petitioners shall along with the certified copy of this o rder also submit a copy of the representation along with the writ petition, coun ter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit.

11. The petitioners are also at liberty to submit a fresh representation, if so advised. It is further made clear that till disposal of the representation by a s 12. peaking order, the respondent authority shall keep the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- ( Rupees Eight Lakhs) only apart as directed by this Court on 29.09.2011.

13. municated forthwith to the petitioners at their given addresses. Needless to say that the order passed on the representation shall be com

14. osts. With the above direction(s), this writ petition stands disposed of. No c