S.Arokiadoss v. The Chief Executive Officer,Puducherry Slum Clearance Board, Puducherry & Ors.

ORDER(Order of the Court was made by PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J)This writ petition has been filed in public interest, allegingirregularities in the implementation of the Perunthalaivar KamarajarCentenary Housing Scheme for the Houseless Poor Rules, 2003.2. According to the petitioner, the Housing Scheme Rules, 2003was a laudable scheme intended to provide house to the poor. But forthe last three years, the funds have been disbursed by abusing everyRule in the Housing Scheme Rules. The grievance of the petitioner isthat the funds have not reached the intended beneficiaries. According to the petitioner, though a sum of Rs.187.50 crores havebeen disbursed under the Scheme, major portion has been diverted andmisappropriated by unscrupulous persons and thereby, a majorfinancial scam has been done in the name of houseless poor. It wasalso submitted that the Rules provided that the requisite applicationform may be obtained free of cost in the Office of the PondicherrySlum Clearance Board, Pondicherry and in the Office of the DeputyCollector, but the forms have been given only to the MLAs and thepetitioner was informed on application under the Right to InformationAct that in the areas of the Ministers and MLAs of each Constituencybeing given application form for the Housing Scheme.

Therefore, thegrievance of the petitioner is that there is scope for manipulation. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on an earlier occasionMr.T.Murugesan, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry), appearingfor the Respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter and also minutes of the Advisory Committee appointed under the Scheme. According to thelearned Government Pleader, the application should be submitted in Form-I, which shows that there should be a recommendation of the MLAfor grant of subsidy. It also requires scrutiny report by the Sub-Inspector of Survey, Puducherry Slum Clearance Board. it is not asif every application recommended by an MLA is immediately approved bythe Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee has independentlyscrutinised every application. It was also submitted that the list https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of beneficiaries is hosted on the website of the Union Territory of Puducherry at www.pondicherry.nic.in.

Therefore, everything has beendone with absolute transparency and the beneficiaries were personsBelow Poverty Line i.e. Annual income of Rs.15,000/- or less. 4. In the affidavit it was stated that some of them who wereactually in Government employment and whose Annual income was AbovePoverty Line i.e. above Rs.15,000/- and below Rs.1,20,000/-, havebeen granted financial assistance under the Scheme. According to thelearned counsel, this meant that particular beneficiaries were notentitled to receive benefit under the Scheme. The petitioner's prayerwas for appointment of a retired High Court Judge to go into theaspect. We however, feel that if the list of beneficiaries isprepared it would show us the manner in which the Scheme has beenimplemented. 5. Today, an exhaustive compilation has been produced beforeus, giving the list of beneficiaries separately under Phase-I, Phase-II, Phase-III and Phase-IV. The learned Government Pleader appearingfor the Puducherry Government also submitted that out of 32,500beneficiaries, 23,676 have already constructed the house and areresiding there.

He has also submitted that majority of thebeneficiaries are coolies. But however, the compilation would showthat some of them are pursuing other avocation. However, it is seenfrom the compilation that as against the name of every applicant theoccupation, Annual income, category of Ration Card and even RationCard Number has been given. The learned Government Pleader submittedthat there is no scope for manipulation in disbursing subsidy amountto any other family members other than Below Poverty Line, since the Ration Card Number is given. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out oneinstance where according to him both husband and wife had obtainedthe benefit. However, the learned Government Pleader submitted thatthe Ration Card Numbers are different and it is the name of differentperson and that the allegation may be unfounded. We also find from acursory glance of this compilation that more than 90% of thebeneficiaries held the Red category of Ration Card which means theyare the persons Below Poverty Line, entitled to get the benefit underthe Scheme.

We cannot rule out the possibility of some persons whomay not be entitled from getting benefit when there are so manybeneficiaries. But by and large it would appear that the benefit hasbeen given only those who were homeless and those who held Red RationCard. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The requisiteapplication form may be obtained on free of cost in the Officeof the Pondicherry Slum Clearance Board, Pondicherry, inrespect of Pondicherry and Karaikal regions and in the Officeof the Deputy Collector in respect of Mahe and Yanam regions.ii. The application shall be submitted in Form-I along withthe following documents: (a) Income Certificate obtained from an officer not below therank of a Tahsildar or Red Ration Card issued by CivilSupplies Department; (b) Original documentary evidence to prove that the applicantpossesses a free plot issued by the Government or having ownhouse-site or having thatched hut in his own plot/house-site; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c) Certificate of Nativity by birth or residence, Ration Cardand Election Identity Card; (d) In the case of physically disabled, necessary certificatesfrom the competent authority of the Health Department.

In thecase of widow, Death Certificate of the husband along with herMarriage Certificate and in the case of deserted person, necessary order from the Family Court. " The Rules provided that the application should be given free of costto any one. But Form-I insists upon Recommendation of MLA. Thisreads as follows:- "Recommendation of the Member of Legislative AssemblyThiru/Tmt./Selvi.......................H/o, W/o, or S/o,D/o.................................. is residing in the hut situatedin the patta issued by the Government/in the plot owned by him/her.I recommend him/her for the grant of subsidy under the scheme the Pondicherry Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Centenary Housing Scheme for the Houseless Poor. "Place: Signature of the Date: Legislative Assembly Member,........................Constituency. According to writ petitioner this is contrary to Rule. 8. It was submitted on behalf of the Government Pleader thisrecommendation is required in order to ensure that the deservingpeople are benefited by the scheme and to obtain the genuineness ofthe claim of the applicants and there is no impersonation.

The eligible beneficiaries have beenidentified in accordance with the procedure contemplated under theabove said Rules. 11. This Court on a perusal of the compilation produced by the Respondents 1 to 3 is of the opinion, that by and large theidentification of the beneficiaries have been done in accordance withthe Rules. In fact one of the office instructions reads as follows:- "The Advisory Committee constituted under the Scheme Rulesis required to be convened for the selection ofbeneficiaries out of the recommended cases. The list placedbelow does not provide the required inputs to the Committeefor making appropriate recommendations. The details of landholding, namely, name of the Revenue village, survey number, extent, ownership/possession, documentary proof, etc. apartfrom the eligibility or otherwise of the applicant have notbeen indicated in the list. The eligibility, on otherwiseof the applicants may be got verified and certified by theofficers of the Board, before placing for consideration ofthe Advisory Committee.

It is requested that the proposalmay kindly be resubmitted to the Committee after attendingthe above. It is suggested that at least in future, as a measure ofsocial audit the draft list of beneficiaries may be gotpublished calling for objections, if any to avoid extensionof benefits to ineligible persons and to ensure transparencyin public dealing. "This is a good suggestion worth considering.

On the contrary tothat amount of Rs.155,61,25,000/- (Rupees One Fifty FiveCrores Sixty One Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) hasactually been so far utilized under this scheme as shownhereunder: (as on 27th July 2009)YearTarget inhousesNo.of housescompletedAmountreleased (in Lakhs)So fardisbursed (InLakhs)2003-047500699630002911.052004-0575006643300028362005-06750037503275.12006-071000025017086.96539.113. I submit that the Advisory Committee which hasbeen constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.9/2004-Hg., dated10.11.2004 comprises of Chairman, Puducherry Slum ClearanceBoard as Chairman of the committee and Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Joint Secretary (Revenue), ChiefTown Planner, Town & Country Planning Department and UnderSecretary to Government (Housing) as members. The ChiefExecutive Officer, Puducherry Slum Clearance Boarddischarges duty as the Member Secretary for the AdvisoryCommittee.

The scrutiny of all applications submitted bythe applicants with the recommendation of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is undertaken by the Chief Executive, Puducherry Slum Clearance Board and the selection ofbeneficiaries is done by the Advisory Committee. 15. I further submit that the purpose of the scheme isto benefit the persons who are below the poverty line andwho do not posses a pucca house on his/her/their ownplot/land in urban or rural areas. The scheme alsofacilitate construction of pucca houses by the recipients ofhouse sites free of cost assigned by the Government of Puducherry, Natham patta/Kudiyiruppu patta holders who hasto construct a pucca house in the allocated land withinperiod of ten years as per the condition incorporated intheir patta documents. The identification of Below PovertyLine (BPL) status of the applicants is made by verifyingwhether they possess red or yellow ration card and in case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of yellow card if the income peer annum does not exceed morethan Rs.24,000/- the applicant is considered as BPLapplicant.

They must belong to Union of Puducherry. It isonly upon satisfaction of above eligibility conditions thephysical verification of the place where such a person istaking shelter is made and then the application is furtherprocessed notwithstanding Member of the LegislativeAssembly's recommendation. Thereafter the verifiedapplications are forwarded to the Advisory Committee forapproval as per Rules. The procedure for selection ofbeneficiaries for housing scheme is well laid down by the Rules, and the whole procedure is undertaken by the Officials up to the stage of payment to the beneficiary inaccordance with the Rule 8. Therefore the entirety of theallegations by the Petitioner is contrary to the above assuch denied. Copies of the minutes of various meetings of Advisory Committee held for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 &2006-07 are enclosed as Annexure I to III of this reply. Thelist of beneficiaries approved by the Advisory Committee for2003-04, 2004-05 is hosted on websitew.w.w.pondicherry.nic.in.

The minutes of the AdvisoryCommittee for the year 2003-04 are not traceable though thelist of beneficiaries selected are placed in the abovewebsite. The list of beneficiaries for the year 2005-06,2006-07 are enclosed as annexure IV & V.16. I submit that the allegation in para 8 made by the Petitioner that 65 Nos. of ineligible persons were grantedfinancial assistance is not correct. I hereby submit thatthe financial assistance under Perunthalaivar KamarajarCentenary Housing Scheme was extended based on thedocumentary proof for Below Poverty Line (BPL) statussubmitted by these beneficiaries in addition to othernecessary documents along with their applications. I submitthat out of 65 Nos. of beneficiaries, 33 Nos. possess RedRation Card or Below Poverty Line (BPL) Ration Card and 32Nos. had submitted income certificate issued by RevenueDepartment, Government of Puducherry certifying their annualincome is below Rs.24,000/- which in turn places them under Below Poverty Line (BPL) status.

I submit that none ofthese 65 Nos. of beneficiaries were in Government service atthe time of their selection under the housing scheme. Thetabular column shown here under which is made based on therecords available with the Puducherry Slum Clearance Boardwill clearly point out that these 65 Nos. of persons hadsatisfied the prescribed norms and therefore the AdvisoryCommittee, which scrutinised their claim of entitlement toreceive the benefit, found them to be eligible. ThePuducherry Slum Clearance Board had posted the name list ofall the beneficiaries selected by the Advisory Committee https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ during the Phases-I & II of the Housing Scheme in thewebsite of w.w.w.pondicherry.nic.in. I submit that the namesof 27 Nos. of beneficiaries under Phase-I and 20 Nos.beneficiaries under Phase-II of the housing scheme out ofabove mentioned 65 Nos. of beneficiaries are included in thepublished selection list.

I submit that the approvalgranted by the Advisory Committee for the remaining 18 Nos.of beneficiaries under Phase-III of the scheme is includedin pages 1 to 7 and 10 to 13 in 5th batch of approved listand also in 16th page in 7th batch of approved list for thehousing scheme during the year 2005-06. Therefore theallegations to the contrary made by the petitioner arewithout merits and unsustainable. YearNo.of Beneficiaries Red RationCardBPL IncomeCertificate 2003-0427 Nos.12 Nos.15 Nos.2004-0520 Nos.11 Nos.9 Nos.2005-0618 Nos.10 Nos.8 Nos. Total65 Nos.33 Nos.32 Nos.17. I submit that this scheme is very successfullyimplemented and so far 21,830 hutments have been convertedinto pucca R.C.C. houses. This by itself stands testimony tothe accomplishment of the objective of providing a decentshelter to the Citizens of India in accordance with thefundamental right of 'Right to Life' as per the Article 21of the Constitution.

18. I submit that at no point of time there was anydisbursement of subsidy without the approval of the Advisory Committee or Inspection Reports or PhysicalVerification by the Government officials concerned. Isubmit that the scheme has been implemented in strictcompliance of the Rules. I submit that the role of the Members of Legislative Assembly is only recommendatory innature as per the rules and all the allegations to thecontrary in Ground E of the affidavit are denied asincorrect and misleading. However, I submit that hisrequest for sanction of housing subsidy under the Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Centenary Housing Scheme can beconsidered subject to his eligibility and procedure underthe rules if he submits a fresh application for the same. "