1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 61 OF 2011. Dinesh Sakharamji Pardhi. ..Vrs.. Guardian Minister (Palakmantri) of District Gondia, The President of Jawahar Vihir Labharti Niwad Zilla Samanyway Samiti and Collectorate,Gondia and Others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ( Shri U. K. Bisen, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A. S. Fulzele, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri A. Y. Kapgate, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 7.) -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE, J J. DATED : 17 th. August, 2011. Heard. Mr. Bisen, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as procedure prescribed for selection of beneficiary in Government decision dated 24th May, 2002 was not followed and there was urgency, hence the petition came to be filed. However, later on information has been obtained under Right to Information Act and in pursuance thereof, Civil Application (W) No. 2056 of 2011 has been moved for amendment. Mr. Kapgate, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are opposing the petition as also prayer for amendment. 2 According to them petition does not contain requisite details. The learned Counsel for petitioner Mr Bisen relied upon the allegations in paragraph No.10 of Writ Petition. Those allegations show that some of the selected beneficiaries already have facility of irrigation and hence, the benefit of the scheme cannot be extended to them. At the end of that paragraph by hand a sentence has been added and the serial number of few beneficiaries in the list are given with contention that other member of their family already had a Well and hence grant of second Well under this scheme is not permissible. Mr. Bisen points out that more details in this respect are furnished in additional affidavit placed in support of petition vide Stamp No. 5603 of 2011 on 24/06/2011. We find that some disputed questions are raised for the first time before this Court. We are not recording any findings regarding correctness of those allegations. We direct the petitioner to make appropriate representation in this respect containing all details to respondent No.2/ Collector within a period of two weeks from today. If said representation is made, respondent No.2/ Collector shall look into the same and pass appropriate orders about the grievance made as early as possible and in any case, within a further period of six weeks thereafter. As it is the specific case of petitioner that persons not eligible for allotment have been selected and norms prescribed in Government decision 3 dated 24th May,2002 are violated, respondent No.2/ Collector to make an attempt to find out officer working under him or working under Zilla Parishad is responsible for such violation if any. If Wells are already constructed benefit is extended to persons not eligible for the same, respondent No. 2/Collector shall also pass appropriate orders for initiating disciplinary enquiry against such officers/ employees and for recovery of public money spent. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudication or omission by respondent No.2/Collector after the Collector passes necessary orders, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court again. With these observations and liberty, Petition is disposed of. No costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE JUDGE Deshmukh