Bombay High Court
Shri Gurumauli Bahuddeshiya ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 March, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 11227/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.11227 of 2016
With
Civil Application No.16533 of 2016
With
Civil Application No.842 of 2017
With
Civil Application No.2246 of 2017
Pandurang Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi
Sanstha, Barhali, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded
And 79 Others. .. Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate, for
petitioners.
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----
With
Writ Petition No.11221 of 2016
Magas Samaj Seva Mandal,
Devtala, Taluka Ausa,
District Latur And 21 Others. .. Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:31:27 :::
2 WP 11227/2016
Shri. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate, for
petitioners.
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----
With
Writ Petition No.11245 of 2016
Sarvangin Manav Vikas Sanstha,Latur
And 66 Others. .. Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, instructed by
Shri. Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for petitioners
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 10.
----
Writ Petition No.11246 of 2016
Kau. Matoshri Parvatidevi Seva
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.
And 21 Others. .. Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:31:27 :::
3 WP 11227/2016
Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----
With
Writ Petition No.12836 of 2016
Marathwada Yuva Mitra Mandal,
Chavanwadi, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded
And 6 Others. .. Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate, for
petitioners.
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----
With
Writ Petition No.12 of 2017
Samaj Prabhodhan Shikshan Mandal,
Sakanpur, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded
And 6 Others. .. Petitioners.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:31:27 :::
4 WP 11227/2016
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate, for
petitioners.
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----
With
Writ Petition No.146 of 2017
Bhagwan Shrikrishan Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, Darephal,
Taluka Basmat, District Hingoli... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. S.B. Ghatol-Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
----
With
Writ Petition No.1434 of 2017
Shri. Guru Mauli Bahuddeshiya
Sevabhavi Sanstha, Beed
And two others. ... Petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:31:27 :::
5 WP 11227/2016
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Shri.
A.R. Kale, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 to 5.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Date: 2 March 2017
ORDER:
1) The petitioners from all the petitions
are registered under the Public Trusts Act and it
is their case that they are Non Government
Organizations (NGOs) and as such on non profit
basis they are running Balgruhas / Balsadans /
Balakashrams / children Homes at various places.
On the basis of permission and recognition given
by the State Government to them, they were
receiving grant-in-aid. They have challenged
Government Resolution dated 1-10-2016 issued by
6 WP 11227/2016
the Women and Child Development Department
Government of Maharashtra. Due to the Government
Resolution there will be verification of the
record of the petitioners and only after
inspection and verification a decision will be
taken on the entitlement of the petitioners to
get the grant. On the basis of that verification
and inspection further decision can be made like
cancellation of permissions.
2) It is the case of the petitioners that
in the past the district authority had made
inspection and had verified the record for
consideration of release of the grant-in-aid and
in accordance with that verification the
Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child
Development Aurangabad had made order to release
the grants in favour of the petitioners. It is
the contention of the petitioners that the record
whatever they have maintained was in accordance
with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and
7 WP 11227/2016
the new directions of verification and inspection
show that more record will be inspected. Another
submission is made like repealing of the rules
made under the Act of 2000 due to coming into
force of the the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2015 and due to that
such inspection or verification is not possible.
On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel
Shri. P.V. Mandlik for the respondents submitted
that as the Government is giving grant-in-aid
the Government has every power to verify as to
whether the petitioners are entitled to get the
grant-in-aid as per the rules which were already
framed for giving such aid and to see as to
whether necessary record in support of the claims
is available. The learned Senior Counsel
submitted that when at the Principal Seat
petitions were filed by some institutions of
that area and the re-assessment / revaluation
was challenged, this Court held that the
Government has the power to make such re-
assessment/revaluation as grant-in-aid was given
8 WP 11227/2016
to them and as they are claiming grant-in-aid.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court
also observed that it is the duty of the State
to ensure that the grant-in-aid is released only
to deserving and eligible institutions. (Writ
Petition No.5811 of 2016 - Jai Tuljabhavani Bahu
Samajsevi Sanstha vs. The State of Maharashtra
decided at the Principal Seat on 31-1-2017).
The learned Senior Counsel further submitted
that, this Court (Aurangabad Bench) had also
observed in the judgment and order dated 27-6-
2016 in Writ Petition No.11237/2015 (Shobhana
Shikshan Sanstha and Others v. State of
Maharashtra) with connected writ petitions that
the State Government was expected to look into
the subject and give directions to the concerned
Department to ensure the disbursement of the
amount as per the entitlement of those
petitioners after verifying the original record
maintained by the concerned authorities and the
record of the petitioners. This exercise was to
be done within 12 weeks from the date of the
9 WP 11227/2016
order. At the Principal Seat the time of one year
is given for such exercise from 31-1-2017.
3) Learned Senior Counsel Shri. V.J. Dixit
for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11245 of
2016 argued some technical points like absence
of rules for doing such exercise. The learned
Senior Counsel Shri. Dixit submitted that the
provisions of the Act, 2000 and the Rules framed
under the said Act, 2000 came to be repealled
when the Act, 2015 came into force. He submitted
that in view of these circumstances, the
provisions of the previous Act, 2000 or the
Rules framed thereunder cannot be considered
against the petitioners. The learned Senior
Counsel further submitted that as the rules are
not framed under the new Act of 2015, the
respondent Government is not entitled to do re-
verification of the things or re-inspection of
the things. He placed reliance on the
observations made by the Apex Court in the
following three cases.
10 WP 11227/2016
(1) AIR 1984 SC 1130 (Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v.
Union of India);
(2) AIR 1986 SC 515 (Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India;
(3) AIR 2005 SC 3401 (State of Rajasthan v.
Basant Nahata).
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance on some observations made by the
Apex Court in the case report as AIR 1970 SC 385
(Income Tax Officer, Alleppey vs. M.C. Ponnoose)
and submitted that if at all any rules are made
in future, those rules or the procedure will be
prospective in nature and that cannot be used
against the present petitioners.
4) The learned Senior Counsel Shri. P.V.
Mandlik for the respondents submitted that in the
previous Act, 2000 there were specific provisions
showing the powers of the State and the authority
created by the State to do the inspection and to
verify the things. He submitted that even if
those provisions are ignored, the fact remains
that if the Government is giving grant-in-aid to
11 WP 11227/2016
such institutions for particular purpose, it is
not only right of the Government but it is the
duty of the Government to see that the public
funds are utilized for the same purpose and
properly. The learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the petitioners are claiming the
grants in respect of the period when the
provisions of the previous Act, 2000 were in
force i.e. for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015
and due to this circumstance also it cannot be
said that the inspection cannot be done again or
the things cannot be verified again. The learned
Senior Counsel drew attention of this Court to
the provisions of Section 68 of the Act 2000 to
give powers to the State to make rules and he
drew attention of this Court to various rules
framed under that provision which include the
provisions of physical infrastructure and
amenities. Various files and registers which need
to be maintained as per the rules and some
specific provision like provision of rule 63
providing for inspection, rule 64 providing for
12 WP 11227/2016
social audit, provision of rule 67 requiring
institution to maintain particular registrars
etc. are relied upon by the respondent. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that the rules
also show that the State Government can grant
certificate of recognition under sections 8, 9,
34, 37, 41 and 44 of the Act only after verifying
the provisions made in the organization for
boarding, lodging, general health, educational
facility, vocational training, treatment services
etc. and it is the duty of the Government to see
that the organization complies with the standards
with regard to the institution, standards or
service as laid down under the Act and the Rules
and also maintains the record. There is force in
the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent. When in the present
matter the petitioners are claiming grants in
respect of the period 2013-2014 and 2014-2015
they cannot say that the provisions of the old
Act, 2000 cannot be used against them. Further,
due to the circumstance that it is the question
13 WP 11227/2016
of releasing the grants-in-aid it is not open to
the petitioners to say that the Government cannot
again inspect the institution and verify the
things. There is no force in the submissions made
by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners that there are no enabling provisions
for doing the inspection again and verification
of the things.
5) One more strange submission was made for
the petitioners. It was submitted that the list
of registers and record given for verification
contains many items which pertain to the record
to be maintained under the Trusts Act and the
record to be maintained under the Income Tax Act
and so these things cannot be verified by the
respondents. This submission is not at all
acceptable. This Court holds that the aforesaid
provisions make it necessary to see the other
record though that record may be connected with
the requirements given under the Trusts Act and
the Income Tax Act. The record needs to be used
14 WP 11227/2016
as evidence on particular items and so it cannot
be said that the record not mentioned
specifically under the Act of 2000 and the Rules,
2007 cannot be inspected by the respondents.
6) The submission was made by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners that once the
audit was done by the Government Department,
second audit cannot be permitted. The counsel for
the petitioners submitted that in the past the
officers of the Government had made inspection
and the record was verified and then decision was
taken to see that the grant needs to be released
and so this decision cannot be changed. On this
point, there is affidavit of the respondent which
is to the effect that many irregularities were
found in the functioning of such organizations.
In many cases it was noticed that even when there
was not a single child in the institution, grant-
in-aid was given, false record of utilization of
grant-in-aid was made. Discrepancies were found
in respect of number of children shown on record
15 WP 11227/2016
and the children who were found actually present
in the premises of the institution.
7) A strange submission was made for the
petitioners that in the months of May and June
the children were sent to the relatives and so
they were not present there. Most of the children
are orphans and due to that they are kept in such
organizations. This submission and the objection
to the another inspection and another
verification are sufficient to infer that these
institutions are not ready with the record which
needs to be inspected. These institutions are
expected to give undertaking to the Government
for getting registration, permission that they
will be taking care of the children even if they
are not getting grants. Though such undertakings
are given, there are instances of starvation and
death of the children in such organizations. The
submissions made show that there is clear
possibility of creation of false record for
getting only the grant which is more than hundred
16 WP 11227/2016
crore of rupees. Unfortunately, as per the
policy, more than 60% amount has been already
released and the matters involve only the
remaining amount. In view of these circumstances
this Court holds that it is necessary to do
inspection and verification of the record again.
There is clear possibility that in the past,
things were not done properly by the officers
of the Government. Due to these circumstances
appropriate action also needs to be taken against
these officers. The Government has now started
taking steps to see that discipline is brought
in the said institutions and care of the
interest of the children is taken. This Court
expects that the Government takes such steps to
reach to the logical conclusion and action is
taken against all those who are found guilty.
Action is also expected like cancellation of the
registration or permission. The submission made
shows that in many cases such actions are already
taken. Due to these circumstances this Court
holds that it is not possible to interfere in the
17 WP 11227/2016
matter and give direction to the Government to
release the grants in favour of the petitioners.
In the result, all the petitions stand dismissed.
Pending civil applications are disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
