IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2317 of 2009 Decided on : July 9, 2010 Gram Panchayat Shoja …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala & Ms Vandana Kuthiala, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) CWP No.2563 of 2009 disconnected, as the pleadings are not complete. 2. The present petition, by Gram Panchayat, Shoja Development Block, District Mandi, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 4 and 6, for release of an amount of Rs.4,43,351/-, which, according to the petitioner, is payable by it to suppliers of material, which material has been used in executing various works, under NREGA Scheme and some other Schemes. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Admitted facts are that eleven schemes, total cost of which was 23,73,445/-, were sanctioned for the petitioner-Panchayat. Work on all the eleven schemes started. Petitioner had been demanding release of money from the respondents, in accordance with the provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (for short NREGA), but the respondents had been delaying the release of money. Under the Scheme, labourers engaged were required to be paid their wages, within 15 days of doing of the work by them. Petitioner claims to have incurred an expenditure of Rs.15,93,022/-, on the aforesaid eleven schemes, out of which Rs.10,32,756/- were the wages of labourers and a sum of Rs.5,60,266/- was the cost of the material. After repeated demands by the petitioner- Panchayat, through various resolutions, a sum of Rs.8,30,215/- was released on 8th September, 2008. Earlier to that, a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- had been released as advance. According to the petitioner, after payment of wages of labourers and price of some of the material purchased on credit, a sum of Rs.4,43,351/- still remains to be paid to the suppliers of material and they are pressurizing the Pradhan of the Panchayat and its members for early release of money. 4. Petitioner’s allegation is that the money is not being released, at the instance of respondent No.5, a Junior …3… Engineer employed in the Office of respondent No.4, because the brother of said respondent No.5 has political rivalry with the Pradhan of the Panchayat, as the two belong to different political parties. Brother of respondent No.5 is stated to be a sitting MLA from the Constituency, of which the petitioner-Panchayat is the part. 5. Respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 have filed common reply. Respondent No.5 has filed a separate reply. Allegation of harassment of the petitioner by or at the instance of respondent No.5 has been denied. It has been stated that inspection of the work sites was carried out in December, 2008, by respondent No.5, in his capacity as Junior Engineer, and it was noticed that the works had not been satisfactorily executed and there were shortcomings and the quality of work was poor. Valuation of the works was done by respondent No.5 and according to him the total assessed value of the works, inclusive of labour charges and the cost of material was Rs.10,59,406/- and a sum of Rs.11,49,471/- had already been released to the petitioner-Panchayat. It has also been alleged that vouchers of the material, allegedly purchased by the Panchayat, having not been submitted, money was not released. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. …4… 7. It is not in dispute that in accordance with the provisions of NREGA, labour charges are required to be paid within 15 days of the doing of work by the labourers. Also, it has been admitted by the parties that the cost of the material has to be not more than 40 per cent of the total cost of a project. The Act provides for fortnightly inspection of the works, when the work is in progress. In the present case, no material has been placed on record that any fortnightly inspection was carried out by the Junior Engineer, when the works were in progress and, therefore, it was too late in the day for the respondents to have come out with the plea that the work executed by the petitioner was sub-standard or its quality was poor or there were any shortcomings. As a matter of fact, Junior Engineer is accountable, on account of his having not carried out the inspections, when the works were in progress, because the NREGA mandates periodical inspections and the scheme framed under the Act provides for fortnightly inspections. 8. Respondents released a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- in the beginning and thereafter a sum of Rs.8,30,215/- on 8th September, 2008, for payment of labour charges. Out of this amount of Rs.8,30,215/-, a sum of Rs.22,463/- had been returned to respondent No.4 and a sum of Rs.60,050/- was paid, on account of cost of material and the rest of the amount was spent on payment of labour charges. The …5… amount released in the beginning appears to have been spent on payment of labour charges, almost in its entirety, because according to Annexure P-3, out of total expenditure of Rs.15,93,022/-, a sum of Rs.10,32,756/- was the expenditure incurred on labour charges and as per resolution Annexure P-9, dated 25th April, 2009, liability on account of labour charges had been discharged by the petitioner, in full, and a sum of Rs.3,81,045/- remained to be paid, on account of cost of material to the suppliers of material, named in that resolution. 9. According to the respondents, there are no vouchers, in support of the claim of the petitioner that the persons named in the resolution, Annexure P-9, have supplied material worth Rs.3,81,045/-, on credit, and the money is due to them. According to the petitioner, details have already been supplied to respondent No.4, vide resolution dated 14th November, 2008, Annexure P-4. 10. In view of the abovestated position, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.4 and 6 to release the payment to the persons/parties, named in resolution Annexure P-9, to the extent mentioned in that resolution, directly on production of vouchers/bills, issued prior to the date of resolution Annexure P-4, dated 14th November, 2008, against proper receipts, within two months from the date of this order, and the receipts so …6… obtained from the persons/parties, named in resolution Annexure P-9, shall be placed on the record of the works, in question, which, as per learned counsel of the parties, is maintained in the office of respondent No.4. In case there is any dispute regarding the identity of any person/party, named in resolution Annexure P-9, Pradhan of the Panchayat or the senior-most member of the Panchayat, shall assist in identifying that person/party. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. July 9, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J