1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.683 OF 2009 1. Anna s/o Ramsingh Chaudhari Age : 40 years, Occ.Agri. & Upsarpanch, R/o Babhulgaon (Kh), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad 2. Narayan s/o Sahebrao Tupe, Age : 38 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Babhulgaon (Kh), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad 3. Janardhan s/o Vishwanath Tupe, Age : 36 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Babhulgaon (Kh), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad 4. Shobhabai Pandharinath Tupe, Age : 30 years, Occ.Agri./Household, R/o Babhulgaon (Kh), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Water Conservator Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Superintending Engineer/ Divisional Coordination, Bharat Nirman Kaksha Office of Divisional Commissioner, New Delhi Gate, Aurangabad 2 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. The Executive Engineer Department of Water Supply, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4A. S.M. Kadam Age : 50 years, Occ.Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Solapur, Tq. Solapur, Dist. Solapur 5. The Deputy Engineer, Water Supply, Zilla Parishad Sub-Division, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad 5A. Sanjay s/o Suresh Andhare, R/o Madhyam Janvikas Swayam Seva Sanstha, S.B. Konark Estate, Osmanpura, Aurangabad OR Sanjay Suresh Andhare, R/o Gurumauli, Plot No.2, Mayurban Colony, Shahanoormiya Darga Road, Aurangabad 6. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad 7. Karbhari s/o Madhav Tupe, Age : 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Babhulgaon (Kh), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad 8. Bhavana Santosh Pancheriya, Age : 32 years, Occ. Household, R/o Babhulgaon (Kh), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr Deelip Bankar Patil, Advocate for respondent no.4; Mr K.F. Shingare, Advocate for respondents no.7 and 8. 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 31st August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 and 3 to sanction the second instalment of Rs. 18,48,560/- and also to direct them to deposit the said amount in the account of the Committee, namely "Gramin Pani Purvatha Va Swachata Samiti, Babhulgaon (Kh), Taluka Vaijapur". The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 to 5 to draw the estimate of the total work done and the amount spent by the earlier Committee of which respondents no.7 and 8 were the President and Secretary. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 & 3 to hold an enquiry of respondents no. 4-A, 5-A, 7 and 8 as the amount has been misappropriated by the said respondents. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of 4 mandamus directing respondents no.4-A, 5-A, 7 and 8 to deposit an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- in this Court. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus :- The Central Government introduced a scheme for Bharat Nirman Scheme and as per the scheme, the scheme is to be implemented through the State Government. The object of introduction of the said scheme is to solve the acute shortage of potable water in rural areas. We need not further dilate in respect of the other provisions of the scheme as sufficie to state that the Gram Sabha had appointed the earlier Committee of which respondents no.7 and 8 were the office bearers. Thereafter the aforesaid Committee came to be removed and an Enquiry Committee headed by the present petitioner came to be appointed. We also need not examine the question as to the legality of the election of the petitioner Committee. The petitioner Committee had submitted applications for release of the second instalment. The second instalment, however, was not released as by the impugned order dated 9.1.2008 the new Committee was informed that since the estimate of the work done by the earlier Committee was not received, the second instalment could not be released. The petitioners have 5 accordingly filed the present petition. 4. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents no. 4 & 5 have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply it is stated that the estimate of the work carried out by the earlier Committee has been received. The earlier Committee was accordingly paid an amount of Rs.11,40,000/-. It appears that an Enquiry Officer came to be appointed to inquire in respect of the work carried out by the first Committee. The report of the Enquiry Officer is that the work carried out by the earlier Committee is to the tune of Rs.7,44,655/- and, therefore, the earlier Committee has been paid an amount ion excess of the work carried out by them. At paragraph 20 of the affidavit in reply it is stated that the Grampanchayat and/or Social Audit Committee is the Committee which is responsible for the work carried out by the Sub-Committees and, therefore, grievance of the petitioners that an excess amount has been withdrawn by the earlier Committee would be maintainable with either the Grampanchayat or the Social Audit Committee. In respect of the proposal of the petitioners for release of the second instalment, it is stated that if the petitioners submit a proposal in the prescribed format accompanying by the requisite documents, respondent no.5 would scrutinize the said proposal and if the proposal is found complete in all respect, the same would be 6 submitted to respondent no.4 who is an authority competent ion law for taking further decision in respect of the proposal, including onwards submission of the proposal to respondent no.2. 5. In the light of the statement made in the affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents no.4 & 5, Shri P.S. Dighe, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would submit a proposal in the prescribed format accompanying by all requisite documents within four weeks from today to respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 shall scrutinize the said proposal and examine not only the proposal and the accompanying documents but also the eligibility of the petitioners and if the proposal is found complete in all respect, the respondent no.5 shall forward the said proposal to respondent no.4 within four weeks thereafter. The respondent no.4 if finds that the proposal is complete in all respect, shall forward the proposal to respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 shall, if the proposal of the petitioners is complete in all respect, direct the release of the second instalment. Mr P.S. Dighe, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that in respect of the action to be taken against the earlier Committee for recovery of the excess amount, the petitioners would submit appropriate application either to the Grampanchayat or the Social Audit Committee requesting them to take appropriate action against the earlier Committee. Since 7 neither the Grampanchayat nor the Social Audit Committee is a respondent before us, we refrain from issuing any directions to them. Suffice it to say that the petitioners are at liberty to resort to such remedies as are available in law to the petitioners for bringing to the notice of the authorities the alleged excess payment made to the earlier Committee. 6. In the light of the above, we allow this petition and permit the petitioners to submit a proposal accompanied by the requisite documents to respondent no.5. We direct respondent no.5 to examine the said proposal in accordance with law including the entitlement of the petitioners and if the proposal is found complete to forward the same to respondent no.4 within four weeks. Respondent no.4 shall scrutinize the said proposal and if the proposal is found to be complete, shall forward the said proposal to respondent no.2. Upon receipt of the said proposal from respondent no.4, respondent no.2 shall examine it and if the petitioners are found entitled for the release of the second instalment, the same shall be paid to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than six weeks of the said decision. We grant liberty to the petitioners of submitting the requisite application to the Grampanchayat or to the Social Audit Committee in respect of bringing it to the notice of the aforesaid authorities the alleged excess payment made to 8 the earlier Committee. 7. We wish to clarify that we have not examined whether in fact, any excess payment has been made to the earlier Committee and on receipt of such application the appropriate authorities would be at liberty to examine if any alleged excess payment is made and the action to be taken in accordance with law. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp683.09 9