The petitioner Adimali Grama Panchayat has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P1 to P10 from respondents 1 to 5.
ii. Quash Ext.P10 by a writ of certiorari, any other appropriate writ, order or direction
iii. In the alternate, issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider whether the purchase of uniforms to the Mates can be regularised or not while taking ex-post-fact of sanction with respect to the purchase of mask and putty.
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose Ext.P11 representation within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
v. Such other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to render justice to the petitioner in the interest of justice.
2. As per Ext.P10, the Ombudsman for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Idukki District has found that an expenditure of ₹255498.40 expended by the petitioner for purchase of uniforms for issue to Mates was unwarranted and irregular. It has been found that the said expenditure was not authorized by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Therefore the said amount has been directed to be recovered immediately. With respect to two other items, purchase of masks and putty, it has been directed that the matter may be taken up by the Panchayat with the Government for the purpose of obtaining ex post facto sanction for regularization of the procurements made. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Latheesh Sebastian that, the expenditure incurred for the purchase of uniforms should also have been so left to the consideration of the Government.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent. According to the fourth respondent, the purchase of uniforms was unwarranted and is not supported by the provisions of the scheme that was being implemented. It amounted to a misutilisation of the fund. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the purchased items are not of good quality. It is the case of the fourth respondent that, the decision of the Panchayat to purchase the said articles is illegal.
4. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon section 30 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 to contend that the action enjoys the protection of the said provision, being an action taken in good faith.
5. Heard. It has been found by the Ombudsman in Ext.P10 that, the fund that was available for implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme could not be utilized for the purchase of unauthorised articles like uniforms for the Mates, “putty, mask" etc. The Ombudsman has after consideration of the explanation of the petitioner found that purchase of the uniforms was irregular and considering of the quantum of expenses incurred, it has been held that the same was absolutely without any justification whatsoever. No material or evidence has been placed before me to justify a conclusion that, the findings of the Ombudsman are infirm in any manner. As per the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 the fund available is meant to be utilized for providing rural employment. For the purpose of generating employment, it is not necessary that, uniforms should be procured, as done in the present case that too, by incurring an expenditure of ₹255498.40. Coupled with the allegation in the counter affidavit that, the articles purchased are of low quality and that when compared with the price of similar articles in the market, the price is high. Therefore the action has to be viewed seriously. I am not satisfied that, any interference with the direction to recover the said amount is necessary. With respect to the other items like putty and masks, Ext.P10 has already directed the Panchayat to seek ex post facto sanction from the Government. Therefore, the said aspect also does not require any interference.
For the above reasons, I find no grounds to grant any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
rkc.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.