SCA/307120/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3071 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= RATHOD ARJANBHAI DUDHABHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS BHAVIKA KOTECHA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2, 4, MR PREMAL R JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 31/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/307120/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Ms.Kotecha, learned AGP waives notice of Rule for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.Joshi, appears for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste had applied for financial assistance for construction of house as per the Scheme floated by the Government viz. Dr. Ambedkar Aavas Yojana. As per the petitioner, he was having the land which has been inherited by him from his forefathers at Ambardi, which is just at the near distance of Jasdan town. The application of the petitioner was considered and ultimately, the decision was taken to reject the application on the ground that the petitioner is residing at Jasdan with his brother Nanjibhai Dudabhai who has already obtained financial assistance from the Social Welfare Department and therefore, is not being recommended for grant of financial assistance as per the Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that though he is regular resident of village Ambardi, on account of the harassment by some persons and the matter had also reached before this Court against the harassment and this Court had also issued certain directions for protecting the persons SCA/307120/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT belonging to Scheduled Caste, therefore, he had no option but to stay with his brother at Jasdan. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Heard Mr.Asthavadi for Mr. Purohit for the petitioner, Ms. Kotecha, learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr.Joshi for Panchayat officers. 5. There is no dispute on the aspect that the petitioner is belonging to Scheduled Caste and is below the poverty line. There is also no dispute on the aspect that the petitioner had made an application. The only ground for rejection of the application is that the petitioner is not staying at village Ambardi but is staying at village Jasdan with his brother Nanjibhai Dudabhai and his brother has obtained financial assistance from the Social Welfare Department. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not been able to show any ground of disqualification, if the person is staying with his brother nor they have been able to show that if his brother has obtained any financial assistance for construction of his house, the petitioner would be ineligible. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents emphatically submitted that since the petitioner was not staying at Ambardi and was staying at SCA/307120/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT Jasdan, he could be said as ineligible. It appears that the said contention is also ill- founded inasmuch as the petitioner is already having the plot at Ambardi, which is by succession as stated by the petitioner and even panchnama is there on record. Not only that, but the concerned Gram Panchayat has granted permission for construction of the house over the said land. Merely because on account of the circumstance as mentioned by the petitioner, he had to migrate to Jasdan, would not be a ground for disentitling the petitioner to claim the benefit for construction of the house which otherwise is available to him as per the Scheme of the Government. 7. If a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste has no means to stay and as a result thereof, construction is not made and he had migrated on account of certain compelling circumstances, such cannot be a ground for denying the benefit to him for financial assistance if he is fulfilling all other conditions as per the policy of the Government. Further, it is not a case of the respondent authority that the petitioner is having any house at Jasdan . On the contrary, it is mentioned that the petitioner is staying with his brother. The petitioner staying with his brother at Jasdan, on account of the circumstance of migration would be totally extraneous aspects to deny the SCA/307120/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT benefit to the petitioner for financial assistance, if otherwise available in accordance with the policy of the Government. In the same manner, merely because his brother has obtained any financial assistance for construction of house from Social Welfare Department, is also not a ground mentioned in the policy for ineligibility or disqualification. 8. Under these circumstances, the impugned decision of the authority for denying the benefit of the financial assistance to the petitioner as per the ground mentioned in the decision dated 21.02.2007 is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. It is further directed that the respondent No.2 shall consider the application of the petitioner as per the observations made hereinabove and shall take the decision as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court. 10.It is also observed that in the event the decision is taken for grant of benefit to the petitioner, the disbursement shall also be made within reasonable time, preferably within a period of in accordance with the Scheme. 11.Petition allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. SCA/307120/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. D.S. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy