1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3047 OF 2009 1) Dhondiba Madhavrao Gade and others - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioners; Mrs.R.K.Laddha AGP for Resp.No.1/State. Mr.C.G.Patil, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 2 to 4; Mr.M.P.Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.5. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 4th November, 2009. PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2 2) By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the execution of work of digging a well for water supply scheme meant for the villagers in village Sindkhed, Tq. Ghansavangi, District Jalna. The said work is set in motion under Bharat Nirman Yojana floated by the Government of India for development of rural areas and to cater to the need of drinking water to the villagers. 3) The allegation of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Gram Sabha was not legally constituted, it was later on dissolved; old well is demonstrated to have been constructed as a new one under the said scheme by the committee and several illegalities have been committed in implementing the said scheme. The members of the committee are hand-in-glove with Government/Zilla Parishad officials. The petitioners’ contention is that this being a public interest litigation, the petitioners have 3 raised this issue before this Court. 4) According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, a committee, namely Gramin Pani Purawatha Swacchhata Samiti ( a committee for Rural water supply and Sanitation) has been constituted and the said committee is assigned with the work of execution of the said water supply scheme. The members of the said committee are selected by the Gram Sabha of the concerned village. 5) The respondents have filed affidavit in reply. Sub Divisional Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Jalna is present in the Court to instruct the Counsel along with the original record. 6) The learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submitted the original record before us, to substantiate that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and to demonstrate that a 4 new well is being constructed in a field owned by a third person, who had gifted the portion of land for digging the well in favour of the villagers for the purposes of said water supply scheme. Certain calculations, measurement and other ancillary details are produced before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad. 7) The learned Counsel for the Respondents/committee has questioned bonafides of the petitioners. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners were not selected to execute the work under the Scheme. Some criminal cases are pending against the petitioners and, therefore, this is not a public interest litigation, but a litigation set up in private interest of the petitioners. 8) Whether old well is shown to have been a new well or a new well is constructed on the portion of the land donated by the villager, and 5 the work thereof is in progress or not is a matter of fact finding process. The scheme is to be implemented through Zilla Parishad under the Bharat Nirman Yojana floated by the Central Government to cater to the need of water to the villagers. We expect the higher authorities to be more vigilant and cautious while implementing such schemes as they are meant for benefits of the villagers. These are public utility schemes and, therefore, complete tranceparency needs to be maintained while implementing such schemes. 9) The learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submitted that the work under the scheme is in progress to which the learned Counsel for the committee has supported and contended that out of the sanctioned amount for implementation of the scheme of Rs.27,00,000/-,(Twenty Seven lakhs) an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) has been disbursed to the committee. 10) Instead of entering into the disputed 6 questions as to whether the digging of well was undertaken by the Committee and the actual work is in progress or not, or whether illegalities have been committed in implementing the scheme or not, we find that it would be in the interest of justice that the execution and implementation of the work under the scheme is supervised by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 11) We, therefore, direct Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna to supervise execution of the work and its implementation under the Scheme strictly in accordance with the relevant norms and guidelines. The Sub Divisional Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, shall place the relevant and necessary papers in this regard before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna forthwith. 12) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna shall inquire into the matter and fix appropriate responsibility as regards 7 lapses, occurred in conducting this matter in this Court, as a result of which hearing of the petition was delayed. Resultantly, the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 were required to pay the costs quantified by this Court at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). 13) With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. 14) At this, the respective Counsel pray for refund of the costs, which they have deposited in this Court in compliance of the orders passed by this Court. 15) In compliance of the order dated 10th June, 2009, the petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only)in this Court. The petitioners are permitted to get refund of the said amount of Rs.20,000/-. 16) By an order dated 31st August, 2009, this 8 Court had quantified the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to be paid by the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 as the hearing of the petition was delayed on two occasions at the instance of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 17) We are not fully satisfied with the clarification/explanation tendered by the counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for seeking refund of the costs of Rs.25,000/-. 18) In the matters of this nature, interest of public at large is involved and therefore public authorities like Zilla Parishad, should be more vigilant, active prompt in assisting the Court in resolving the controversy. We find that in this matter the order of imposing costs of Rs. 25,000/- upon the respondent nos. 2 to 4 was justified and, therefore, we reject the request of learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 for refund of the amount of costs of Rs.25,000/- which they have deposited in this Court. 9 19) Registry to forward a copy of this order to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna to act upon. 20) Registry is directed to transmit the the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp3047.09