WP(C) 1626/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Soren, lear ned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioners, by the present petition, have prayed for a direction to the res pondent authorities to release the sanctioned amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to Jania Anc halik Hah Kukura Palan Samabai Samity, which amount has been sanctioned accordin g to the petitioners, for construction of building, computer training center, ea rth filling and construction of poultry and duckary shed respectively. According to the petitioners though the said amount has been sanctioned and the Barpeta Z ila Parishad has received the amount from the Govt. of Assam, the same has not b een released to the petitioners to undertake the construction work for the schem es for which such amount has been allotted under the BRGF for the year 2006-2007 . The respondent No. 3 in his affidavit-in-opposition has stated that the amount c ould not be released for two reasons namely; (i) the Barpeta Zila Parishad has n ot approved any construction committee for implementation of the said schemes an d, (ii) for non-release of the fund by the appropriate Govt. It has further been stated that as soon as the fund is released the schemes for which such fund has been sanctioned will be implemented. In view of such stand taken by the respondent No. 3, this Court vide order dated 17.3.2010 directed the respondent No. 1 to file an affidavit indicating the amo unt released by the Govt. to the Barpeta Zila Parishad for the financial year 20 06-2007, against the sanctioned amount, pursuant to which the respondent No. 1 h as filed the affidavit to the effect that out of 14 crores sanctioned for the ye ar 2006-2007 under the BRGF for Barpeta district, first installment of Rs. 7.50 crores and the second installment of Rs. 5.56 crores has been allocated to the C hief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad and subsequently fixation of ceiling was also issued empowering the Chief executive Officer of the Zila Parishad to withdraw the same. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid amount has been sanctioned for the purpose of implementation of the schemes thr ough the aforesaid society for which the construction committee has been constit uted by such samity with Govt. representatives as the members, constitution of w hich has been intimated to the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Barpeta Zila P arishad and hence, there cannot be any reason for not releasing the amount for i mplementation of the said schemes. In any case, according to Mr. Mahmud, the Zil a Parishad cannot sit over the matter as the schemes are for the year 2006-2007 and it has to take a decision on the construction committee constituted for that purpose. Mr. Soren, the learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that since the construction committees constituted by the society in question is yet to be approved, there is no question of releasing the amount to the society for implem entation of the schemes for which the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs has been sanctioned. Mr. Soren further submits that on a subsequent enquiry made, it has come to the notice of the authorities that the society is nonexistent, which submission, ho wever, has been seriously objected to by Mr. Mahmud. It appears from the annual action plan prepared under the BRGF, which has been a nnexed as Annexure A to the writ petition, that Rs. 8 lakhs has been allocated f or two schemes namely; for construction of building and computer training center and e/filling at Grammaya Bikash Samittee cum meeting purpose Technological Ins titution and all religion philosophic Educational trust (Jania) and Construction of poultry and Deckery shed and office of the Anchalik Mahila Hah-kukura palan samabay. It also appears from the said document that there were allocation of al together Rs. 14 crores for different schemes identified for implementation. Acco rding to the petitioner the aforesaid two schemes were entrusted to the aforesai d samity, which has constituted the construction committee and about which the D eputy Commissioner and the Zila parishad were intimated. The stand of the respondent No. 3 is that such construction committees are yet t o be approved. The sanction of the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs for the aforesaid schem es are not in dispute. The schemes was for the year 2006-2007. Therefore, the Zi la Parishad cannot sit over the matter for indefinite period of time, as has bee n done in the instant case, without implementation of such schemes. It appears t hat no decision has been taken by the Zila Parishad relating to the constitution of the committees by the society, which resulted in delay in implementation of the schemes for which the amount has been allocated. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the claim of the petitioners relating to re lease of the fund of Rs. 8 lakhs for implementation of the aforesaid schemes and pass necessary order. It is needless to say that the Zila Parishad while considering such grievance of the petitioners shall also take into consideration about the existence or other wise of the samity. The said exercise is directed to be completed and necessary order is directed to be passed within a period of 30 days from today. The petitioners shall produced a certified copy of this order passed today before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad for doing the needful in terms of the order passed. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No cost.