WP(C) 2680/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA The petitioner is the Gaon Panchayat, namely, Majgaon Gaon Panchayat, re presented by its President, Md. Abdul Wahed. The grievance of the Gaon Panchyat is in respect of the Annexure -3, order dated 16.06.2009, passed by the Director, District Rural Development A gency, Barpeta (hereinafter, for short, DRDA) in terms of which the particular w ork stands allotted to the Barpeta Zilla Parishad, which was earlier allotted to the petitioner Gaon Panchayat vide Annexure-2 order, dated 11.04.2009. Accordin g to the petitioner, such course of action has been adopted on extraneous consid eration and not for any valid reasons. This Court, while hearing the matter on 31.10.09, noticed that i n respect of 17 Nos. of Gaon Panchayats, there was NIL implementation of various projects. Be it stated here that the particular work was entrusted to the petit ioner Gaon Panchayat under National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and t he scheme formulated thereunder. The Court wanted to know as to why it is the pe titioner Gaon Panchayat, which was singled out for the course of action challeng ed in the writ petition, and, not others. The Project Director, DRDA was directe d to appear in person with all relevant datas. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.10.09, Mr. B.Malaka r, Project Director, DRDA, Barpeta appeared in person on 05.11.09. He submitted that the impugned order dated 16.06.09 (Annexure-3) had to be passed as there wa s failure on the part of the petitioner Gaon Panchayat to implement the earlier scheme. However, on perusal of the records, it was found that the said course of action was taken on the basis of purported public complaints from different par ties. When it was noticed that no such complaints are available in the records, the Project Director was directed to explain the position, who, in turn, submitt ed that only oral complaint were lodged. His further submission was that the pro posal, as contained in the impugned order, was duly approved by the Deputy Commi ssioner. In view of the aforesaid position, both the aforesaid authoritie s i.e. the Project Director, DRDA and the Deputy Commissioenr were directed to e xplain the position by way of affidavits. Pursuant to such direction, both the Project Director and the De puty Commissioner have filed their affidavits. In both the affidavits, the said two authorities have referred to purported failure on the part of the petitioner Gaon Panchayat towards utilization of the fund provided to it. In the counter a ffidavit filed today by the Project Director, it has been stated that all the Ga on Panchayats have been directed through respective Block Development Officers t o complete utilization of available fund and reflect the same in the Management Implementation System (MIS), failing which, they are to return the unutilized fu nd. According to the affidavit, the petitioner Gaon Panchayat could not show suc h utilization through MIS when the first affidavit was filed by him on 19.08.09. However, the petitioner Gaon Panchayat has already completed the MIS and accord ing to the affidavit, the same is satisfactory. In this connection, the Project Director has annexed Annexure-2 and 3 documents pertaining to the same. The moot question as to why the petitioner Gaon Panchayat has be en singled out has not been answered. As noticed above, as per the chart prepare d by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development (Annexure-2) to the counter affidavit filed today, indicates that in respect of as many as 17 Gaon P anchayats, including the petitioner, there was NIL implementation of various pro jects under ANREGA and the scheme thereunder. Inspite of such position, it is on ly the petitioner Gaon Panchayat, which has been dealt with a differential treat ment to entrust the work to the Zilla Parishad. No such action has been taken in respect of other Gaon Panchayats. This aspect of the matter has not been explai ned in the counter affidavit. Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the pe titioner submits that Annexure-3, impugned order, had been issued on extraneous consideration. Mr.A.K.Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respond ent No.8, denies the same. Ms. R.Chakraborty, learned State Counsel submits that it is imma terial as to which authority is to carry out the work in question. As per the provisions of the ANREGA, in the normal circumstances , it is the Gaon Panchayat, which is to carry out the works under the scheme. Th ere could be a position where in the event of failure to implement a particular work, the same may be entrusted to the Zilla Parishad. However, it is the submis sion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 16 of the Act , it is the Gaon Panchayat which is the executing/supervising authority in respe ct of such works. He further submits that there is no failure on the part of the Gaon Panchayat to execute the work and that the money was lying with the Block Development Officer without being disbursed to the Gaon Panchayat, therefore, th ere is no question of failure on the part of the Gaon Panchayat. As indicted in the order dated 05.11.09, there was no written co mplaint against the petitioner Gaon Panchayat, but the authorities acted solely on the basis of purported oral complaints. However, the records produced by the Project Director did not reflect anything relating to such oral complaints. Need less to say that in the governmental action, the same cannot be backed by any su bjective satisfaction and the matter requires to be considered objectively. If t here was anything wrong against the petitioner Gaon Panchayat, rules of natural justice demanded that the petitioner should have been heard. Considering all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, more partic ularly, the fact that the Project Director has now found the petitioner Gaon Pan chayat has already completed MIS and the same is satisfactory, so also by the De puty Commissioner in his affidavit filed today (at paragraph 5), I dispose of th e writ petition remanding the matter back to the said two authorities i.e. the P roject Director, DRDA, Barpeta and the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to take appr opriate decision in the matter by way of review of the earlier order dated 16.06 .2009 (Annexure-3). Let an appropriate order in this regard be passed as expeditious ly as possible, preferably within 30.11.2009, so that the works, which is the pr imary concern, do not suffer. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.