(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by residents of Village:Bhapadi, Post:Vami-Bhapadi, Ta:Tharad, District:Banaskantha, highlighting various irregularities and illegalities in the implementation and execution of the Green Revolution Scheme, floated by the Central Government for the benefits of villagers engaged in the agricultural activities.
2. The case made out by the petitioners in this petition, may be summarized as under.
3. The Central Government, in the year 2007, had introduced the 5 years Green Revolution Scheme at the Village:Bhapadi. The said scheme was also introduced in the adjoining villages too. The scheme includes the works like sim-talavadi, aad bandh, khet talavadi, boribandh, Gram Vatika, Vanikaran and ratnajyot, anaj biyaran, cactus fencing etc. including distribution of kits of vegetables and water-drums.
4. It is alleged that despite the allocation of huge funds by the Central Government for the proper implementation of the scheme, till date, neither any satisfactory, nor any significant work has been carried out in the village and false figures of expenditure have been shown on paper. It is also alleged that under the Water Shed Area Development Program, false bills and vouchers have been prepared and the amount allocated for different works has been misused by the persons concerned at the cost of the villagers, who have no idea about the scheme and are thereby deprived of the benefits of the said scheme.
5. The petitioners, in the year 2010, had applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Taluka Development Officer, Tharad to furnish the necessary information as regards the works completed under the Water Shed Area Development Program. However, the Taluka Development Officer, Tharad, did not bother to give any reply till September 2010. The petitioners had also approached the District Development Officer, Palanpur, the District Superintendent of Police, Palanpur and the Collector, Palanpur, but, they also did not pay any heed and failed to verify as to whether the necessary works have been carried out and the benefits have gone to the villagers or not.
6. In December 2010, the Chairman of the Water Shed Development Committee provided the information, as applied for by the petitioners. The information, according to the petitioners, included the false vouchers, bills and details of benefits extended to two or three villagers.
7. On the basis of the information provided to the petitioners, a letter was addressed by the petitioners dated 07.01.2011 to the Collector, Palanpur, District:Banaskantha, requesting him to look into the matter and initiate appropriate inquiry in the complaints of corruption concerning the 5 years Green Revolution Scheme at village Bhapadi.
8. On 12.01.2011, the Collector, Banaskantha addressed a letter to the District Development Officer, Palanpur to inquire into the allegations of corruption as alleged by the petitioners, so far as the implementation and execution of works under the Five Years Green Revolution Scheme at the village:Bhapadi was concerned.
9. According to the petitioners, till this date, nothing has happened and no inquiry has been initiated so as to protect the interest of the villagers.
10. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Taluka Development Officer, Tharad, District:Banaskantha had furnished the details regarding the Water Shed Area Development Program alongwith the names of the beneficiaries, but in reality, the benefits have been shown only on paper and no significant or satisfactory work has been undertaken in the village. Some works under the said scheme are still incomplete and the others have never seen the light of the day. However, the bill and the vouchers are issued in the name of the Chairman, Water Shed Committee, Bhapadi or in the name of some villager or a trading company or agro industries.
11. In such circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to look into the allegations and directions to perform their administrative and legal duties under the 5 years green revolution scheme, so that, the fruits of the said scheme could reach all the beneficiaries of the village:Bhapadi. The petitioners have also prayed to initiate appropriate inquiry against respondent No.1, so far as the allegations of corruption is concerned.
II. Stance of the respondent No.3 i.e. District Development Officer, Banaskantha.
12. According to the respondent No.3, the Government of India, through Ministry of Rural Development, has floated a Water Shed Development Program for the entire country and provides 75% grant to the District Rural Development Agency at the District Level with effect from 01.04.2009 and the Water Shed Development Programs are implemented by the said unit. The grant received by the District Rural Development Agency are transferred to the units. Each water shed development unit has a project manager as the head of the Unit and the District Development Officer of the District Panchayat is the Chairman of the Unit.
13. So far as the village:Bhapadi is concerned, funds to the tune of Rs.24,46,000/- between 2007-08 to 2011-2012, were allocated for various projects like forestation, water harvesting activities, soil moisture conservation activities etc.
14. The Bhapadi Water Shed Committee has been provided funds of Rs.24,46,000/- and so far Rs.19,00,000/- has been spent for the various projects. The Chairman of Bhapadi Water Shed Committee is one Mr. Ramjibhai Devjibhai Chaudhary, who also happens to be a member of Bhapadi Gram Committee.
15. Pursuant to the complaint of the petitioners, addressed to the District Collector, Banaskantha dated 07.01.2011 as regards various illegalities and irregularities in the implementation of the project, the respondent No.3 had received a letter from the District Collector, Banaskantha dated 12.01.2011, asking the respondent No.3 to immediately look into the matter and take necessary action. In turn, the respondent No.3, immediately had instructed vide letter dated 12.01.2011 to the Project Manager, District Water Shed Development Unit to inquire into the matter.
16. It is also the case of the respondent No.3 that the Taluka Development Officer, Tharad, was also looking into the matter, as many other complaints were made by the petitioners.
17. The Taluka Development Officer, Tharad, submitted his report on 18.07.2011, but as there were no details about the complaints made by the petitioner vide their letter dated 07.01.2011, the Project Manager constituted a committee of in all 10 members vide order dated 18.07.2011 with a direction to submit a report.
18. A team visited the village:Bhapadi and looked into the matter by examining the books of accounts, other records etc. Site visits were also made by the members of the team. Accordingly, a detailed report dated 03.08.2011 was submitted by the members of the team to the Project Manager about execution of all the schemes.
19. In the report, it was highlighted that there was negligence on the part of the Water Shed Development Committee in implementation of the schemes of Gram Vatika and a forestation (Vanikaran). It was also reported that approximately 2500 saplings were planted under the forestation scheme, but due to lack of proper care, all 2500 plants died, resulting into failure of the forestation project, although, initially all necessary care, including erecting of proper fencing was undertaken.
20. According to the respondent No.3, so far as the Water Shed Development Unit is concerned, its role is limited to the extent of providing funds, coordination as well as guidance.
21. The funds are provided to the committee directly, but the committee has to work under the supervision of the Taluka Development Officer of the concerned Taluka Panchayat designated to project implementing agency.
22. On receipt of the report dated 03.08.2011, the project Manager addressed a letter dated 04.08.2011 reporting that there was negligence at the maintenance level and the Water Shed Development Committee of Village:Bhapadi had failed in discharging their duties under the scheme.
23. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 08.08.2011 was issued on the respondent No.1 i.e. the Chairman of the Water Shed Development Committee calling for his explanation as regards the allegations of corruption leveled by the petitioners as well as the other infirmities pointed out by the inspecting team in its report. It is the case of the respondent No.3 that in response to the said notice, Mr.Ramjibhai Devjibhai Chaudhary, the Chairman of the Water Shed Development Committee had addressed a letter dated 25.08.2011, requesting the respondent No.3 to provide certain information and records. The Project Manager, District Water Shed Development Unit, Palanpur, had provided the necessary details and record vide letter dated 03.09.2011 as requested by respondent No.1.
24. The respondent No.1 as Chairman of the Committee responded vide letter dated 17.09.2011 stating that there was no irregularity at any stage in implementation of the schemes of Gramvatika and Vanikaran.
25. In view of the explanation tendered by the respondent No.1, the Project Manager, District Water Shed Development Unit at Palanpur thought fit to constitute a new committee of 4 members, which included three engineers and an officer of the Agriculture Branch to visit the site and verify the implementation and execution of the farm bunding, in so far as it related to 4 beneficiaries of village:Bhapadi is concerned.
26. The new committee, after necessary inspection, placed its report dated 26.12.2011, reporting that the work of farm bunding had been executed in the farms of all the four beneficiaries.
27. The Project Manager, immediately placed the said report before the Chairman and District Development Officer, District Water Shed Development Unit, with necessary detailed notings on the file on 27.12.2012.
28. After considering the report as well as the materials on records, the Chairman and District Development Officer, addressed a letter dated 03.01.2012 to the District Collector, Banaskantha District at Palanpur, informing that after examining the matter threadbare, nothing was required to be done, as no substance had been found in the complaints and allegations levelled by the petitioners as regards the implementation of the scheme in the village.
29. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 has prayed to dismiss the petition as no substance has been found in the various allegations levelled in the petition and no further actions are also required to be taken against Mr. Ramjibhai Devjibhai Chaudhary, Chairman of the Village Water Shed Committee.
30. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration in this public interest litigation is, as to whether having regard to the allegations leveled by the petitioners and also having regard to the explanation tendered by the respondents, whether any further probe or inquiry deserves to be ordered in the interest of justice.
31. It appears from the materials on record that Rs.24.46 lac has been allocated till this date under the scheme and out of which Rs.18.92 lac has been spent for various projects. All that has been placed before us, is the report of the committee consisting of the three engineers and an officer of Agriculture Branch, in which the committee has stated that farm bunding was seen in the farm of four beneficiaries. However, the committee has clarified that out of four, two beneficiaries had done farm bunding under the water shed project, whereas, the other two beneficiaries had undertaken the activities of farm bunding at their own cost. We have noticed that despite this clear finding in the report, the respondent No.3 District Development Officer, Banaskantha District Panchayat, in his affidavit in reply dated 05.10.2012 filed before this Court, has made a false statement that the committee has stated that the work of farm bunding has been executed in the farms of all the four beneficiaries.
32. Apart from the above, it appears that the authorities have taken the negligence, carelessness and lethargy on the part of the respondent No.1 very lightly and have very conveniently overlooked the same. On the respondent No.3 s own showing that about 2500 trees were planted, but as on today not a single tree has survived. We are not at all satisfied with the explanation of the authorities in this regard and there is no explanation on the part of the authorities, as to why, no action has been taken against the concerned persons for their negligence. It is very unfortunate that lacs of rupees are spent by the Government for the benefit and upliftment of poor and lower strata of society, but the funds are being thoroughly misused and not utilized for the purpose for which they are sanctioned. We are unable to understand as to how Rs.18.92 lac has been spent from Rs.24.46 lac, allocated to the committee directly by the Government. From the nature of the work which has been undertaken and which has been shown to us on paper, it is very difficult to believe that works worth Rs.18.92 lac has been undertaken.
33. We are quite conscious of the fact that in such type of matters like the present one, the Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not make a roving or fishing inquiry, more particularly, when there are highly disputed questions of fact involved in the matter. However, in the present case, from the materials on record, we are quite convinced that the respondents have not been able to tender any cogent, convincing and plausible explanation, so far as the allegations levelled by the petitioners is concerned.
34. Although, more than once, inquiry has been initiated and reports have come on record, but, we are not satisfied with such reports. In the larger interest of the beneficiaries under the scheme, who are none else then poor agriculturists of the villages, we deem fit and proper to direct the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development Department of the State Government, to look into the matter threadbare, by calling for all the necessary records. The Principal Secretary shall immediately initiate an appropriate inquiry in this matter and complete the same within a period of 4 months from today. We also direct that utilization of the balance amount for any other project shall be under strict scrutiny and surveillance of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
35. With the above observations and directions, we close this Public Interest Litigation. However, we direct that, report that may be prepared by the Principal Secretary shall be placed before this Court on completion of the inquiry and registry shall notify the matter to report compliance, no sooner the report is placed on record.
36. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.] [J.B.
PARDIWALA, J.] Ankit* Page 12 of 12