WP(C) 783/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Y. Sikdar, learned counsel ap pearing for the respondent No.7. I have also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned A ddl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. The petitioner, who was earlier appointed as Chairman of the Project Imp lementation Committee (PIC), Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP) vide n otification dated 2.2.2011, is aggrieved by the subsequent notification dated 4. 2.2011, by which the petitioner has been dropped from the Chairmanship and the r espondent No.7 has been reinstated as the Chairman. Earlier, the respondent No.7 was appointed as the Chairman by order dated 6.2.2008. Although, no counter affidavits have been filed but Mrs. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel has produced the relevant file bearing No. TAD/BC/105/06/ Pt.II. On perusal of the file, what has transpired is that the petitioner had ma de an application for his appointment as Chairman in place of the respondent No. 7 on the ground that the said respondent no.7 had committed large scale illegali ties towards implementation of the projects, like preparation of list of benefic iaries for Tractors, Pick-up Vans etc. and the distribution of the amount involv ed without associating the other members of the Council. In the said application, the petitioner had narrated his involvement with the p olitical party in question and sought for a reward by way of appointing him as t he Chairman. On the basis of the said representation and also the representation submitted by various authorities against the respondent No.7 alleging large sca le illegalities including defalcation of Govt. money, the petitioner was recomme nded for appointment as Chairman at the political level. Thereafter, he was so a ppointed by the aforesaid notification dated 2.2.2011. However, immediately ther eafter, on the basis of the request made by the Minister, Parliamentary Affairs to the Minister, WPT & BC, the respondent No.7 was reinstated as Chairman. In th e mean time, an enquiry was conducted through the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Lak himpur regarding the purported illegalities committed by the respondent No.7. Th e Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur by his report dated 4.1.2011 submitted th at there was scope for committing irregularities as cash components were not dis bursed through Account Payee cheque, which was required for maintaining transpar ency. As per the report, transparency was also not maintained in the process of selection of beneficiaries for different beneficial schemes. However, since the respondent No.7 was backed by the aforesaid Ministers, he could get his reinstat ement as Chairman irrespective of the purported illegalities committed by him. In the representation made by various organisations, there was allegation of de falcation of Govt. money to the tune of lakhs of rupees. Since the records have revealed that everything was done at the politica l level, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the choice relating to app ointment of Chairman, however, the Court expresses its concern regarding the fin ancial illegalities and irregularities, even to the extent of defalcation of Gov t. money as reflected in the file produced by the learned State Counsel. If this is the state of affairs for running and / or implementation of Govt. schemes, n one else but the common people, who suffer at the hands of the politicians Writ petition stands disposed of, without however, any order as to costs .