IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 1970 of 2004
With
W.P. (S) Nos. 2013, 2029, 2130, 2132, 2165, 2166, 2172, 2174, 2229,
2230, 2231 & 2314 of 2004
...
Narendra Nath Gope ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 1970 of 2004]
Chakradhar Bisai ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2013 of 2004]
Jagannath Mahato ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2029 of 2004]
Gokul Chandra Singh Sardar ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2130 of 2004]
Jagdish Chandra Tubid ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2132 of 2004]
Kanhu Charan Pati ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2165 of 2004]
Rengo Samad ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2166 of 2004]
Niral Marshal Soy ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2172 of 2004]
Ganesh Chandra Kerai ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2174 of 2004]
Moika Birua ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2229 of 2004]
Mukund Nayak ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2230 of 2004]
Michael Purty ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2231 of 2004]
Somra Lohra ... Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2314 of 2004]
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West, At Chaibasa
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Singhbhum West, at Chaibasa.
5. The Block Development Officer, Sonua Block, West Singhbhum.
6. The Assistant Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, West Singhbhum,
At Chaibasa.
7. M/s. Hridaya Construction, West Singhbhum ...Respondents. [In all these cases]
...
CORAM: - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioners : - Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 : - Mrs. Shweta Singh, J.C. to Sr.S.C. II).
For the Respondent No. 6 : - Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate.
...
6/12.08.2009
The present writ applications have been preferred by the petitioners in each of
these writ applications, inter alia, for the following reliefs: –
(i) For quashing the order contained in Memo.
No. 74 A, dated 20.12.2003 (Annexure-4) and
similar other memos, issued under the signature of
the Respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioners have
been individually directed to deposit the amounts
mentioned in the impugned orders merely on the
basis of an order dated 09.06.2002, passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, (Respondent No. 6),
alleging the wrong payment of the amounts in
question relating to the work of tube well repairs in
the various Blocks.
(ii) For directing the Respondent No. 2 to either
conduct an enquiry himself or by any competent
person to examine and enquire into the entire
subject matter considering the facts and
circumstances under which the entire works
regarding the repairs/replacements of tube wells
were done at the instance of the Respondent Nos. 3
to 5.
(iii) Further relief has been prayed to restrain the
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from taking any coercive
action against the petitioners.
2. From the facts stated, it appears that the petitioners, in each of these writ
applications, were posted as Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. during the
period of 1999-2001 at various Blocks. At a meeting at the District level Development
Committee, held on 08.05.1999, presided over by the Deputy Development
Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, wherein, all the Block Development Officers
of the districts had participated, a decision was taken to repair the tube wells and for
drilling new tube wells in the several Blocks. Accordingly, the B.D.Os. were directed to
execute the work through J.R.Y. Panchayat funds. The Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat
Sevaks/V.L.Ws. were given the responsibility to identify all such tube wells, which were
needed repairs in the respective blocks, to be carried out under the Jawahar Gram
Samridhi Yojna. A General instruction was issued by the Respondent No. 4 by way of
guidance that the expenditure for ordinary repairs for each tube wells could be made to
the extent of Rs.700-800/-
It further appears that pursuant to the decision taken by the District
Level Development Committee, the Respondent No. 5, proceeded to implement the
directions and for which he had invited bids for selecting the working Agencies/suppliers
for executing the work of repairs. The work was finally awarded to one M/s Hridaya
Constructions, Chaibasa and the work order was issued on 09.08.2000 to all the
concerned Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. Accordingly, the work was
executed by the Agency appointed by the Respondent No. 5 in presence of the petitioners
and completed during the period 2000-01.
After more than three years, the impugned order dated 20.12.2003,
was issued against the petitioners directing them to deposit the amounts specified in the
individual orders and a further direction was issued to institute First Information Reports
against the Panchayat Sevaks.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the petitioners have raised,
inter alia, the following grounds: –
(i) The impugned order has been passed
without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners
and without affording any prior opportunity to
explain as to why the order for deposit of money
should not be passed against them.
(ii) The petitioners were in no manner
responsible either for the completion of the repair
work or even for the engagement of the contractor
for executing the repair work and neither were they
responsible even for supervising the work executed
by the contractor. The only duty assigned to the
petitioners was to identify the damaged tube wells
for repairs which they have done bona fidely. In
fact, no amount of money was ever entrusted to any
of these petitioners for execution of the assigned
work.
4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the outset
that identical issues was raised earlier before this Court in a batch of writ applications,
vide W.P. (S) No. 2241 of 2004 and other writ applications, which was decided by a
Bench of this Court vide order passed on 18.03.2009. This Court held in the context of
the facts and circumstances of the case that the entire action on the part of the
Respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and there is total non-application of mind and accordingly, the orders impugned in the
aforesaid writ applications were quashed. Learned counsel submits that the same are the
factual features in the present writ applications and the petitioners also deserve the same
benefit of relief as granted to the writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications.
5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondents, in five of
the writ applications, (i) W.P. (S) No. 2130 of 2004, (ii) W.P. (S) No. 1970 of 2004, (iii)
W.P. (S) No. 2165 of 2004, (iv) W.P. (S) No. 2029 of 2004 and (v) W.P. (S) No. 2174 of
2004, though in the remaining cases no counter affidavit has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that she has verified the
facts of each of the present writ applications and on comparing the same with the facts of
the earlier batch cases, namely W.P. (S) No. 2241 of 2004 and other cases which has
been decided by a Bench of this Court, she is satisfied that the facts and the grievances of
the petitioners in the present writ applications are the same, which was maintained by the
petitioners in the batch cases, which has already been disposed of.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I agree that the ratio
and the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 2241 of 2004 alongwith the batch of other writ
applications, fully covers the facts and the dispute raised in the present writ applications.
Accordingly, all these writ applications [W.P. (S) No. 1970 of 2004 With W.P. (S) Nos.
2013, 2029, 2130, 2132, 2165, 2166, 2172, 2174, 2229, 2230, 2231 & 2314 of 2004] are
allowed. The orders impugned in each of these writ applications are hereby quashed on
the ground that the same are arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and also suffers from non-application of mind. There shall,
however, be no order as to costs.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK