Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 61595 of 2017 Petitioner :- Nirmala Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chandra Srivasta,Ramesh Chandra Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharam Deo Chauhan
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dharam Deo Chauhan appearing for respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-respondents and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and thereafter respondents may also be directed to pay Rs. 4,15,362/- and balance amount of Rs.1,90,000/- for construction of bricks road (Kharanja) by the petitioner for the period of 2010-15.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the information dated 30.5.2017 the Gram Panchayat Adhikari has given the intimation that the balance amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- could not be paid to petitioner. Further submission is that as such admitted facts that this amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- is still pending due.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.2, 3 and 4, wherein it has been categorically stated that in fact no work was carried by the petitioner and therefore, no amount is balanced on the part of answering respondents and as such payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- is not payable and cannot be paid to the petitioner.
Other factual assertions regarding the location of working etc. have also been mentioned. Relevant paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 16 of the counter affidavit are quoted as under:
"That the contents of paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition as stated is not admitted. One information has given by Gram Panchayat Secretary on 30.05.2016 in respect of Right to Information Act in which it is stated that after construction of Kharanja construction on from Ganeshpur link road to Pathak Tola Rs. 1,72,455/- in which Rs. 1,32,000/- amount on bricks and Rs. 40,455/- paid on soil and labour cost. The information regarding any other work done by the petitioner is not in the knowledge of Gram Panchayat and in Gram Panchayat no other work has been done by the petitioner except the aforementioned work, therefore, no amount is balance on the part of answering respondents. It is relevant to submit here that the petitioner for her claimed amount has not produced that documentary evidence, like proceeding of village panchayat regarding proposal of construction, annual work Scheme, estimate, measurement book, vouchers regarding purchase of bricks, Muster Role of labours in constructions of kharanja works before the authorities, hence in absence of the same the payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- cannot be paid to the petitioner. In respect of aforementioned the then Gram Panchayat Secretary submitted a report dated 03.03.2018 before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Basti. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, photocopy of the report dated 03.03.2018 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-1 to this counter affidavit.
That the contents of paragraphs No.11 of the writ petition as stated is not admitted. The petitioner in the paragraph under reply has stated about construction of kharanja road from Barai Tola to house of Shyam Lal but in support of this contention has not filed documentary evidence.
That the contents of paragraphs No.12 of the writ petition as stated is not admitted. In the meeting of village panchayat from the house of Shyam Lal to the house of Barsat and from the house of Barsat to the house of Sadalu, no approval has given for construction of kharanja road.
That in reply to the contents of paragraphs No.17 of the writ petition, it is submitted here that the petitioner presented representation dated 21.07.2017 but in support of his representation the petitioner has not produced documentary evidence, like proceeding of village panchayat regarding proposal of construction, annual work Scheme, estimate, measurement book, vouchers regarding purchase of bricks, Muster Role of labours in construction of kharanja works before the authorities, hence in absence of the same the payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- cannot be paid to the petitioner."
A perusal of annexure-1 to the counter affidavit, Lal Chandra, the then Gram Panchayat Adhikari has given the reply dated 03.03.2018 which has been annexed to the counter affidavit. Wherein it has been categorically stated that in regard to the working of Rs. 1,90,000/- there is no intimation to the Gram Panchayat and no such work has been carried out in Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha and there is no documentary evidence including the proceeding of the Gram Panchayat and annual work project, estimate, measurement book, vouchers regarding purchase of bricks, Muster Roll of the labours are not on record.
A perusal of annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit also indicates that in its reply dated 20.08.2016 given under the RTI Act in paragraph 8, this has been categorically stated by Sri Lal Chandra the then Gram Panchayat Adhikari.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to issue the mandamus as prayed in the present petition.
The factual assertions that are being made in absence of any documentary evidence cannot be appreciated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 31.10.2018 SKG