The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4346 of 2023 (Through hybrid mode) Sanjulata Sahu and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioners: Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate For State: Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUDGMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and Judgment: 05.04.2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Petitioners names stand deleted from beneficiary list under the
Legal Reasoning
housing scheme. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on their behalf and on earlier occasion had submitted, identification and selection of beneficiaries procedure stands given in the scheme. It is a Central scheme and annexure-1 in the writ petition is the Framework for Implementation, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin prescribing the procedure. He had referred to clause 4.4 in the frame work, dealing with verification of priority lists. Clause 4.4.1 is reproduced below. Page 1 of 7 // 2 // “4.4.1 Once the category wise system generated priority lists are made available and suitably publicized, a Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, will be convened. The Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, will verify the facts based on which the household has been identified as eligible. If the inclusion has been done based on wrong facts or if the household has constructed a pucca house or has been allotted a house under any government scheme or has permanently migrated since the time of the survey or has died leaving no successor, the Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, shall delete the name of such household from the system generated priority list. The list of deleted households, including reasons for deletion, will form part of the minutes of the Gram Sabha/Village Sabha or the lowest unit of local self government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act.” (emphasis supplied) He had submitted, in the counter there is reliance on circular dated 15th January, 2023 for allegedly filtering out names of petitioners under step-1 of ‘exclusion process’. This was on basis of purported enquiry by teams comprising of employees in the Panchayat Samiti office, resulting in deletion of his clients’ names, on allegation that they possess pucca Page 2 of 7 // 3 // houses. 2. Today he lays emphasis on clause 4.4.1 for its scope and effect. He submits the verification is to be done by Gram Sabha/village Sabha or the lowest unit of self Government as recognized by the respective State/UT Panchayat Act, convened for the purpose. The procedure does not admit of the administration appointing an inquiry team of employees from the Panchayat Samiti office, to cause enquiry. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. He draws attention to office order dated 28th May, 2021, issued by the Block Development Officer (BDO). He submits, the order says that as per instructions of the Project Director, teams mentioned in the order were constituted to verify eligibility of the persons named in the system generated priority list for sanction of house under PMAY-G for year 2021-2022. The persons constituting the teams are all government employees. They had instructions to diligently cause the verification and any lapse or error would invite strict disciplinary action. He hands up circular dated 15th July, 2021 issued by the Principal Secretary and relies upon last paragraph in it, reproduced below. “It will be the personal responsibility of PD, DRDA and BDO concerned to ensure correctness of the above lists. Any wrong or incorrect entry will be viewed very Page 3 of 7 // 4 // seriously and invite strong disciplinary action against the officer concerned.” He submits further, the Gram Sabha by their resolution no.5 in their meeting held on 2nd October, 2022 approved the enquiry report appended to said order dated 28th May, 2021. He hands up the resolution. 4. Mr. Rath in reply submits, when his clients had objected to purported enquiry resulting in allegation that they possess pucca house, there was disclosure of said office order dated 28th May, 2021 and the list of persons deleted. Now, from the Bar, there is reliance on resolution no.5 taken in Gram Sabha meeting held more than one year later on 2nd October, 2022. Resolution no.5 does not specifically refer to the list under said office order dated 28th May, 2021. He submits, his clients have stated in the rejoinder that they do not possess pucca house. The administration is purporting to create a dispute of fact so that adjudication can be prevented. 5. Plain reading of clause 4.4.1 reveals that a Gram Sabha/village sabha or lowest unit of recognized local self government is to be convened for verifying the facts, based on which the household has been identified as eligible. The procedure does not call for verification by fresh enquiry. It appears, by said office order dated 28th May, 2021 the administration constituted enquiry team for verification. The enquiry Page 4 of 7 // 5 // team submitted report, disclosed following said office order, in the counter. The report does not bear a date. The report was introduced by paragraph-6 in the counter. There too no date has been given in respect of the report. 6. On behalf of State there has been handed up, inter alia, minutes of meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 2nd October, 2022. Contention is, by resolution no.5 there was approval of the enquiry made by employees of the Panchayat Samiti, regarding verification of those listed as beneficiaries under the housing scheme. 7. Implementation of the scheme under the particular clause 4.4.1 requires the Gram Sabha/village Sabha or the lowest recognized unit of local self government to verify the facts, on which the household has been identified as eligible. Contingencies provided in the clause are also regarding households having constructed pucca house or having been allotted a house under any government scheme, amongst other situations of migration, death etc. The undated report has a column for stating reason of ineligibility and against petitioners and others reason given is ‘pucca house’. 8. The procedural clause clearly required the mentioned democratically elected units to have caused verification of the facts, on which original list was made. In this case, verification was done on subsequent enquiry by employees of the Panchayat Samiti. The Gram Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Sabha/village Sabha or concerned lowest recognized unit of local self government did not itself either verify the facts, on which the list was prepared nor undertook subsequent enquiry for verification. Contention of petitioner is that more than one year after issuance of said office order dated 28th May, 2021 and enquiry report, the latter stood approved by the Gram Sabha on 2nd October, 2022. Mr. Sharma submits, Gram Sabha is convened on Gandhi Jayanti and that was the pandemic period, which caused the delay. 9. Documents relied upon by State at the Bar were not disclosed in the counter. Accompanying submissions have also been made from the Bar. What becomes clear is that the Gram Sabha completely abdicated its duty to cause the verification. Instead the administration took upon itself to constitute enquiry team comprising government employees, to verify. The task was enjoined upon the elected local self government unit. In the circumstances, petitioners grievance must be addressed. 10. The Sarapanch, Buhalipala Gram Panchayat is added as opposite party no.4. Petitioners have liberty to effect the amendment in the cause title, in Court, to be counter signed by Court Master. Added opposite party will undertake exercise of verification of the beneficiary list forthwith, in accordance with clause 4.4 given in the frame work for implementation of the scheme. Result of the verification is to be made Page 6 of 7 // 7 // known to petitioners within three weeks of communication. Mr. Sharma submits, the direction be confined to petitioners. Court accepts the submission and directs accordingly. 11.
Decision
The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks Page 7 of 7