IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 1356 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K. VASU, VINEESH BHAVAN, KADAVOOR, KARIPUZHA.P.O, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA - 690 101. 2. SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYATH, MAVELIKKARA - 690 101 *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED 3. PROJECT DIRECTOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD 28.2.2011 IN IA. 3468/2011. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.1356/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE IST PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 29.3.2004 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE WORK OF METTELLING THE ROAD FROM CHERANKULANGARA TO KALLAVOOR. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10.4.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29.8.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.8.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA. P6:- COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 20.11.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARY, OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13.12.2007 PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OP. 977/2007. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 9.7.09 OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OP. 977/2007. P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 1.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1356 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who was the Convenor of the Committee that was awarded with the work under S.G.R.Y Scheme 2003-2004 viz., side protection and macadamization of the road from Chelankulangara to Kalavoor Kadavanthara colony in Chettikulangara Grama Panchayat, filed this writ petition raising grievances against non-releasing of 200 quintals of food grains in terms of Ext.P1 agreement. On being awarded with the aforesaid work the petitioner in his capacity as the Convenor of the beneficiary committee executed Ext.P1 agreement with the first respondent. The petitioner has completed the construction in terms of Ext.P1 agreement, it is contended. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents were bound to release 200 quintals of food grains or the sum equal to the value, pursuant to the execution of the work in question, it was not released to the petitioner. Raising such grievances the petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 representation. However, no action was taken thereon. It was in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition for appropriate reliefs. WP(C).No.1356/2011 2 2. A statement has been filed in this writ petition by the first respondent. It is admitted thereunder that the work in question was completed. After the conclusion of the work the Assistant Executive Engineer, Poverty Alleviation Unit, District Panchayat check measured the work and prepared a final bill for Rs.6,68,539/-. SGRY Scheme is an employment assurance programme for the rural poor and, therefore, a portion of the amount has to be paid as food grains (rice and wheat). Even going by the statement made on behalf of the first respondent out of the final bill amount of Rs.6,68,539/- only an amount of Rs.4,61,802/- was given to the petitioner. An amount of Rs.31,835/- was remitted as Value Added Tax and towards the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund. Going by the Scheme, food grains equivalent to an amount of Rs.1,74,902/- was to be given to the petitioner. However, the records would reveal that food grains to the tune of Rs.49,083/- alone was issued to the petitioner on receipt. The said receipt in token of receipt of the food grains is kept in the file. Admittedly, there is no proof for the issuance of food grains for Rs.1,25,819/- in the file. At the same time, the food grains stock register would reveal that 150 quintals of rice and 50 quintals of wheat were issued to the petitioner by the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Alappuzha presently re-designated WP(C).No.1356/2011 3 as the Project Officer, Poverty Alleviation unit, District Panchayat, Alappuzha. Pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P6 from the petitioner a letter was sent to the concerned Block Development Officer in his residential address but, it was returned unclaimed. Later, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and admittedly, the Ombudsman has passed an order directing the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to enquire into the matter. Going by the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent the said enquiry is still going on. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice that a scanning of Ext.P6 would support the contention of the petitioner to certain extent. As already noticed hereinbefore, even the statement filed by the first respondent would reveal only releasing of food grains to the tune of Rs.49,083/- and there is absolutely no material to show that food grains to the tune of Rs.1,25,819/- was released to the petitioner in his capacity as the Convenor of the beneficiary committee. In the context of the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is relevant to refer to the following recital from Ext.P6:- “SrLcV j]¡ÚLe¾]jLvw|oLp nƒ|iLj| v]z]f¾]¤ Bh| YcOvLp] 18/5/04 Rs y]. 1979/03(1) k]K.,c].B¡.c].I pORa D¾qvV NkWLqU AjOvh]\ÿ 700 W~]¢r¤ nƒ|iLj|¾]¤ j]ÐV WP(C).No.1356/2011 4 100 W~]¢r¤ nƒ|iLj|U W¦v}j¡¨V AjOvh]\ÿfLp] WLe]\ÿV nƒ|iLj| q^]yVãr]¤ SqXRÕaO¾]pfLp] WLeOÐO. AfOSkLRs 4/2/05 Rs y].2406/04&LU jÒ¡ k]K.,c].B¡.c]. I pORa D¾qvV NkWLqU NkñOf v¡¨]jV qºLU YcOvLp] 50 W~]¢r¤ SYLfÒOU 50 W~]¢r¤ Aq]pOU AjOvh]¨OWpOºLp]. CT nƒ|iLj|U oLSvs]¨q IlV.y].RI p]¤ j]ÐV IaO¨OÐf] jV CT Bl}y]Rs oO¢ I¤.^].IyV Bp è}. IyV.Nkh}kVWOoLr] Rj \OofsRÕaO¾OWpOU BpfV IlV.y].RI p]¤ j]ÐV IaO¨OWpOU R\pVf]ŸOºV. NkyVfOf nƒ|iLj|U So¤ v¡¨]jV RWLaO¾fLp] WLe]\ÿV nƒ|iLj| q^]yVãr]¤ S\¡¨OWpOU WOrvV vqO¾OWpOU R\pVf]ŸOºV. IÐL¤ nƒ|iLj| q^]yVãr] ¤ SmæL¨V k`V\Lp¾V RyNWŸr]pORa KSÕL v]fqeU R\pVf f}pf]SpL SqXRÕaO¾]pfLp] WLeOÐ]sæ. So¤ v¡¨]jV nƒ| iLj| v]z]foLp] BRW AjOvh]\ÿ 150 W~]¢r¤ Aq]pOU 50 W~]¢r¤ SYLfÒOU So¤ SrLcV j]¡ÚLe¾]jV AjOvh]\ÿfLp] nƒ|iLj| q^]yVãr]¤ S\¡¨OWpOU WOrvV vqO¾OWpOU R\pVf]ŸORºË]sOU nƒ|iLj|U RRWÕã]pfLp] WLe]¨OÐ qy} fV lps]¤ WLeOÐ]sæ. IÐL¤ W¦v}j¡¨V nƒ|iLj|U j¤W]pfLp] WLe]\ÿV m].c].K yLƒ|RÕaO¾]p W¦v} jrORa Skq]sOtt oONhÕNf‚V‚¥ lps]¤ yPƒ]\ÿ]ŸOºV. Cf]¤ W¦v}jrORa KÕV SqXRÕaO¾]p]Ÿ]sæ.” The tenor of Ext.P6 would undoubtedly show that some manipulations had been done by certain officials. In Ext.P6 the second respondent specifically stated that a further enquiry in this matter is highly necessary. That fact was duly communicated to the Project Officer. As already stated, contents in Ext.P6 as also in the statement made on behalf of the first respondent would undoubtedly show that the contention of the petitioner to the extent of non-releasing of food grains to the tune of Rs.1,25,819/- cannot be said to be bereft of any basis. One can certainly suspect some manipulations in the register and WP(C).No.1356/2011 5 commission of misappropriation. Even after noticing a suspected massive corruption, as has been revealed in this case, no appropriate follow-up action has been taken by the competent authority. Be that as it may, any action to identify the culprit cannot be a reason to deny the benefit to the petitioner. There cannot be any further delay, laches or lapses on the part of the competent authority. At the same time, without the actual determination of the quantity of food grains remaining to be released to the petitioner this Court will not be in a position to issue a positive direction. Taking note of all such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case no enquiry as recommended in Ext.P6 is initiated so far, the competent authority shall conduct appropriate enquiry to identify the officials responsible for the manipulation and misappropriation. An enquiry to conduct the exact quantity of food grains remaining to be released to the petitioner shall also be conducted. After such quantification the competent authority shall take appropriate steps to release such quantity of food grains liable to be released, in terms of the scheme, to the petitioner in his capacity as the Convenor of the beneficiary committee. In case, it is not possible to release sufficient quantity of food grains, the amount equivalent to the quantity to be WP(C).No.1356/2011 6 released to the petitioner shall be paid. At the same time, the competent authority after identifying the actual persons behind the corruption and misappropriation take appropriate steps against such erring officials. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To ensure that appropriate action has been taken up in the matter a copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala to take appropriate steps. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS