IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6334 of 2011
DHARMENDRA KUMAR PASWAN,ADVOCATE
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
02- 7/4/2011 Heard in part Dr. S K Verma for the petitioner,
and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the present writ petition calls for
directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
A. Kamaladhar Gupta v. Govt. of India (AIR 2002
Andhra Pradesh 326). He submits that the laudable objects
of replacement of dry latrines by septic latrines, prevention
of carriage of head-loads of human excreta by scavengers,
elimination of manual scavenging, and rehabilitation of
scavengers, have not achieved the desired results. The
money allotted for the purpose is being misused and
siphoned off by unscrupulous elements. He, inter alia,
invites our attention to the chart (Annexure 9), at page 43,
showing allotment to organizations which may not have had
the desired/required experience, let alone any rehabilitation
capability and experience.
2. Let the respondents file an exhaustive counter
affidavit on or before 19.5.2011, with particular emphasis
2
on the following issues:-
(i) Why and under what provisions of law was
the advertisement dated 17.5.2008 (Annexure 7)
ignored, and work given by way of nomination?
(ii) Whether work has been allotted to reputed
and credible NGOs with experience in the filed of
liberation and rehabilitation of scavengers in
undertaking the work prescribed under the ILCS
guidelines as enumerated in expression of interest
dated 17.5.08 (Annexure 7).
(iii) How much money including advance has
been given to all NGOs individually for
implementation of the ILCS scheme? How much
has been utilized as per the guidelines within the
given time? Whether unutilized money is lying
with such NGOs, and what steps have been taken
for their recovery.
(iv) The State should specifically state its stand
in relation to the prayer enumerated in paragraph
1(7) of the writ petition, i.e., either to follow the
guidelines enumerated in Annexure 2, or the
organizations selected by the three-member
3committee (Annexure 4), or constitution of a fresh
three-member committee.
(v) Authorities may be restrained from allotting
any further funds or work to organizations not
competent and deficient in experience, in the filed
of liberation and rehabilitation of manual
scavengers.
(vi) The counter affidavit should keep in mind
the judgment reported in AIR 2002 Andhra
Pradesh 326 (A. Kamaladhar Gupta & Ors. vs.
Govt. of India & Ors.).
3. Put up on 22.6.2011 at the top of the list.
The time in the meanwhile may be utilized by the parties for
completion of pleadings.
( S K Katriar )
( S P Singh )
mrl