Delhi High Court
Mangal Singh vs Council Of Advancement Of Peoples ... on 16 August, 2017
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.08.2017
+ LPA 288/2016 & C.M. No. 17168/2016
MANGAL SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
versus
COUNCIL OF ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLES ACTION AND
RURAL TECHNOLOGY AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. K. Rungta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sivankur Shukla, Adv. for
R-1.
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel with Mr. Arun
Kumar for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and proceed to dispose
of the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated
21.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2423/2016.
The appellant had preferred the said writ petition to seek a direction to the
Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology
(CAPART) to implement the Action Points in the report prepared by Dr. B.
P. Maithani in the year 2011, the Evaluator appointed by the Ministry of
Rural Development, Government of India. He also sought a direction to the
respondents to pay the net present value of assets created by him in
pursuance to the projects sanctioned by the Ministry.
3. The learned Single Judge did not grant any relief to the petitioner on
the ground that serious disputed questions of fact arose for consideration in
the case. The Court was of the opinion that the report of Dr. B. P. Maithani
was not conclusive, since it was not accepted by the Ministry of Rural
Development, Government of India and the said report could be explained
by the respondents if recovery proceedings were initiated by the petitioner.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with
liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate legal proceedings in accordance
with law.
4. The case of the appellant was that he is an innovator who comes from
a rural background. He is 68 years of age and he invented fuel-less water
turbine. He claims that the said turbine has been acclaimed by IIT, Delhi
and forms part of the textbooks prescribed for class 10 students as an
example of rural innovation.
5. The case of the appellant was that to fund his projects, he had
approached CAPART. Two of his projects were sanctioned by CAPART,
namely, for development of Check Dam and for fabrication and
popularization of low cost and efficient fuel-less water-wheel turbine. In
relation to the first project, on 29.03.1996 CAPART sanctioned
Rs.4,55,276/-. The appellant was disbursed Rs.2,55,000/- in the year 2000.
The appellant states that the said project was completed in the year 1998-
1999. In relation to the second project, the project cost was reduced by the
respondent to Rs.15 lacs, even though its estimated cost was Rs.16.86 lacs.
CAPART released Rs.12 lacs towards the said project which was completed
in the year 2001-02. The appellant pursued his claim for release of the
balance amount under the two projects, but to no avail.
6. It appears that the respondents, by placing reliance on the terms and
conditions for sanction of the grants, required the appellant to provide
utilization certificates and audited accounts. The appellant, on the other
hand, claimed that since he hails from a rural background, he could not
produce proper bills and vouchers and accounts, and there was no facility for
getting his accounts audited.
7. The aforesaid Dr. Maithani was appointed by the Ministry of Rural
Development to examine the grievances raised by the appellant. The said
Dr. Maithani made a detailed report, namely, the evaluation report on
fabrication and popularization of low cost and efficient fuel-less wheel
turbine-cum-power takeoff machine (Mangal Turbine) Project. After
narrating his findings, Dr. Maithani made his concluding observations
which, inter alia, read as follows:-
"Concluding observations:
47. It will be clear from the above account that Shri Mangal
Singh was harassed and harmed in the process of
implementation of the project. This has happened not only in
connection with the project under reference which was the last
sanctioned by CAPART. It has happened in respect of all
projects sanctioned by CAPART to Shri Mangal Singh earlier
too (list enclosed as annexure I). He was put in double
jeopardy. First, his project which was estimated to cost
Rs.16.86 lakh in 1998 (formulated by CAPART officials in
CAPART office) was arbitrarily pruned to Rs.15.00 lakh
without reducing the physical size and that too after nearly four
years. As is common practice, delay in sanction and release
results in upward revision of the cost to match with the
increased cost of inputs and labor but here was a case where
the cost was reduced without justification.
Secondly, after sanction of the project, second installment of
fund was not released timely even when there was clear
evidence of the utilization of the first installment as reported by
two sets of monitors. In fact the second team of monitors
reported that utilization was more than the amount released (p
373/c). As for the allegation that the project was not
implemented as per the plan, it is not clear what the plan was.
As per the sanction letter, 5 units of Mangal Turbine were to
be fabricated. The monitor's reports said 6 Mangal Turbines
were installed at the site. We also witnessed 6 units installed
in a row. Civil work was to be done for 3 units only but civil
work for all the 6 units was done. PVC pipe 900 meter long
was to be laid which was also done. What was not done was
training, preparation of operating manual and payment of
honoraria which according to Shri Mangal Singh was to be
done in the end with the last installment of grant (pp 407-
408/c). But the project was planned to be done which should
have been appreciated rather than deprecated.
48. In view of the above, there is no case against Shri
Mangal Singh who need to be compensated for the losses
suffered due to adversary role played by CAPART in all the
projects sanctioned to him simply because he did not 'please'
them or because he was from humble background and rural
area or because he was an anti corruption activist. It goes to
the credit of Shri Mangal Singh that in spite of so much of
horror and harassment, he remains stead fast to his
commitment and is able to smile whenever he sees or hears
something positive happening around him. He remains deeply
committed to societal causes and would not mind putting
everything (remaining) at stake to fight corruption and other
evils in the society. He loves fighting for a cause and that is
what is sustaining him. He needs to be suitably honored and
awarded not only for his invention but also for his conviction
and commitment.
49. As for his invention, it is undoubtedly unparalleled in its
simplicity and utility. Its cost benefit cannot be restricted to the
extent of area irrigated and increase in production and income
on account of that. Its benefits are multiple and
multidimensional. Some of the benefits transcend the tools of
social cost benefit analysis. Mangal Turbine is the answer to
the challenging problems of drought, pollution, energy scarcity,
global warming, climate change and price rise besides helping
the farmers, rural artisans and the society at large by its
multifarious utility. All the qualities of Mangal Turbine are
well documented and described elsewhere. The Government of
India is implementing a Bundelkhand package. Bundelkhand is
a drought prone area and its main problem is lack of irrigation.
Unfortunately our policy makers and planners prefer big and
extravagant projects which allow pilferage and splurge,
Mangal Turbine offers the low cost, environment friendly and
sustainable solution to the irrigation problem of Bundelkhand."
(emphasis supplied)
8. The said report also sets out the action to be taken under the heading
"Action Points". Para 2 of the "Action Points" reads as follows:-
"2. CAPART should compensate for the damage of its
project sites and also the monetary loss suffered by Shri
Mangal Singh. This should be part of out of Court settlement
of the dispute. One possible way to do this could be to
reimburse the net present value (NPV) of the investment made
in these projects by Shri Mangal Singh minus the NPV of the
amount already released by CAPART. Estimates for two
projects
(i) the last one at Kanji Ghat for which Rs.12.00 lakh were
released in 2001 and (ii) another Pura Toria/Pachauni project
for which Rs. 2.50 lakh were released in the year 2000 are
enclosed at annexure II & III. The NPV of these projects has
been assessed by the valuer at Rs.3569066/- and Rs.1194591/-
respectively. The total net present value of these two projects
works out to Rs.4763657/- and Rs.14,50,000/- have already
been released by CAPART for these projects at different times.
A suitable compounding rate can give the NPV of the fund
released. The balance can be released to Shri Mangal Singh
with the condition that both these projects would be restored to
their planned capacity which can be supervised by a team of
neutral monitors." (emphasis supplied)
9. Since the issue kept hanging fire, it appears that the appellant even
represented to the Prime Minister of India. The representations made by the
appellant, inter alia, to the Prime Minister of India resulted in examination
of the claims of the appellant by the respondent CAPART. After
examination of the said claims, CAPART issued the communication dated
23.02.2016 to the appellant. The said communication is relevant and reads
as follows:-
"To
Shri Mangal Singh,
Farmer and Innovator
Vill/PO-Bhailoni Lodh,
Block Bar, Distt. Lalitpur,
284123, Uttar Pradesh.
Dated:23-02-2016
Subject: Agreement between CAPART and Shri Mangal Singh-reg.
Sir,
With reference to the letters bearing No. K-14015/10/2015-PC
(Pt) dated 15-12-2015, 07-01-2016 and 09-02-2016 the undersigned
is directed to communicate the decision taken by MoRD and office of
the PMO. The HMRD, Chairman EC, CAPART has approved to
consider release of Rs.5,00,276/- in two projects i.e fabrication and
popularization of low cost and efficient fuel-less water-wheel turbine
and under PC Scheme with subject to the following condition:-
The details of the project fabrication and popularization of
low cost and efficient fuel-less water-wheel turbine bearing F.No.
ARTS/UPR/17/10/1999 is being dealt with by the undersigned which
is as under:-
Sl No. and Name of Amount Amount Amount yet to
No. the project sanctioned released be released
1 F.No. ARTS/UPR/ Rs.15,00,000/ Rs.12,00,000/ Rs.3,00,000/-
17/10/1999-Vol. IV
fabrication and
popularization of
low cost and
efficient fuel-less
water-wheel turbine
It is also instructed that CAPART may take further action to enter an
appropriate agreement with Mr. Mangal Singh in this regard and
close the matter. The following clauses are included in the
agreement.
a. CAPART is agreed to settle the case without obtaining
further audited statement of accounts and utilization
certificates towards the funds released to Shri Mangal Singh.
Accordingly, after releasing the funds said project, will be
treated as completed and closed.
b. Shri Mangal Singh will have to furnish acceptance of the
release of funds with assurance that he will not make any
representation of claims to release more funds than the
releasable amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs in this particular project.
With regard to the project pertaining to PC Scheme bearing
No. 529-21/95-96/PC, it is further to inform that the concerned
Office in Charge, ERC, Lucknow has been intimated to take similar
action for release of Rs.2,00,276/- as early as possible.
On receipt of the duly signed acceptance of the agreement on
stamp paper amounting to Rs.100/- duly notarized along with seal as
witness from Shri Mangal Singh, formal release of fund will be
made.
It issues with the approval of DG, CAPART.
Sd/-
(M.L.Gupta)
Director RTD"
10. The aforesaid communication would show that the respondent
CAPART found that the amount of Rs.5,00,276/- was due to the appellant in
the aforesaid two projects. The respondent CAPART also agreed to settle
the said claim without obtaining further audited statement of accounts and
utilization certificate towards the funds released to the appellant. Release of
funds under the said projects was to be treated as complete, and the issue
was to be treated as closed.
11. It appears that the appellant did not accept this proposal and rejected
the same since, according to him, he was also entitled to interest on delayed
payment.
12. As the issues between the parties could not be resolved, the appellant
preferred the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge as noted herein above.
13. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the face
of Dr. Maithani's report and the communication of the respondent CAPART
dated 23.02.2016, there were no outstanding disputed questions of fact
which required adjudication in civil proceedings. Thus, the learned Single
Judge should have directed release of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,276/-
with interest to the appellant. He further submits that on 26.02.2010, the
respondent itself had issued a circular in relation to the appellant, inter alia,
stating that there was no mala fide diversion of funds made by the appellant
as per the records, and that there was no need to put the appellant under
'FAS' (further assistance stopped). Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant has been treated unfairly by the respondents,
without appreciating his background and the valuable work done by him,
which has been appreciated even by IIT, Delhi.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Rungta, learned senior counsel for the
respondent CAPART has drawn our attention to the order passed by the
Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) 172/2011. Mr. Rungta submits
that in the said writ petition, the Supreme Court is examining the issue of
grants made by the Union Government to the tune of Rs.4756,71,26,395/-
during the financial years 2002-03 to 2008-09 as well as by the State
Governments/UTs, aggregating to Rs.6654,35,87,684/- to NGOs and
Voluntary Organizations. Mr. Rungta submits that the Supreme Court has
taken note of the fact that out of nearly 33 lac NGOs, merely 3.7 lac NGOs
are filing their balance-sheets. The Supreme Court also specifically referred
to the respondent CAPART and the General Finance Rules, 2005 which, in
Rule 212, stipulates that in respect of non-recurring grants to an institution
or organization, a certificate of actual utilization of the grants received for
the purpose for which it was sanctioned in Form GFR 19-A should be
insisted upon, in the order sanctioning the grants-in-aid. It, inter alia,
further stipulates that the utilization certificate should be submitted within
twelve months of the closure of the financial year by the
institution/organization concerned. Mr. Rungta submits that when the offer
dated 23.02.2016 was made to the appellant, the aforesaid order of the
Supreme Court was not in existence. He further submits that the said order
specifically observes in paras 5 and 6 as follows:-
"5. It is apparent from the responses of Respondent Nos. 2
and 5, that the respondents are not aware of the responsibility
of audit, depicted in General Rules, 2005, which is meant for
such like VO's and NGOs. Keeping in mind the aforesaid
misconception (at the hands of Respondent Nos. 2 and 5), we
consider it just and appropriate to direct Respondent Nos. 2
and 5, to complete the exercise of audit contemplated under the
General Rules, 2005, and submit a report to this Court, by 31 st
March, 2017.
6. There can be no doubt about the fact that the amount
disbursed by CAPART and other similar nodal agencies, is
public money. The same must be accounted for. It seems from
the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 5, that the
only action taken for non-submission of balance-sheets/returns
by the VO's/NGO's, is that the concerned VO/NGO is
blacklisted. In case of non-compliance, it is essential to initiate
civil as well as criminal action, whereby, the concerned public
fund is returned to the CAPART/Government, and criminal
action is initiated for defalcation/mis-appropriation. It is,
therefore, essential to direct, that the aforesaid action be taken
immediately on the completion of the exercise referred to
hereinabove. Ordered accordingly."
15. Mr. Rungta submits that in view of the aforesaid directions issued by
the Supreme Court, the respondent is not in a position to even release the
amount offered to the appellant by the communication dated 23.02.2016
without insisting upon the submission of the utilization certificate and
audited accounts. He further submits that the said offer was made only on
account of the fact that the appellant had represented to the Prime Minister
of India.
16. The respondents were required to produce the original records. They
have been produced the perused by us with the assistance of Mr. Rungta.
What emerges from the record is that the appellant is indeed an innovator,
who hails from a rural background. It is also evident that in respect of the
aforesaid two projects, the respondent CAPART, after examining the said
proposals made by the appellant, sanctioned the projects for Rs.4,55,276/-
and Rs.15 lacs, respectively. The said projects, undisputedly, have been
completed. The issue is with regard to the submission of audited accounts
and utilization certificates in the format desired by the respondent. The
appellant has submitted a utilization certificate of his own, which is not
supported by bills and vouchers. According to the appellant, he is not in a
position to produce the same. However, the work done by him under the
projects is available for everyone to see. Even the monitors appointed by
the respondent CAPART have repeatedly visited the sites where the projects
have been implemented, and reported in favour of the appellant - though
according to the respondents, there were some minor discrepancies. In any
event, all these materials have been examined in his report by Dr. Maithani,
which has been placed on record. A perusal of the said report shows that the
same is extremely detailed and is based on the record. Pertinently, he has
also physically visited and inspected the project sites, as noted by him in his
report. There is no order passed by the Ministry of Rural Development
rejecting the said report till date.
17. Even before us, the respondents have not advanced any submission to
throw any doubt on the said report. Pertinently, Dr. Maithani was asked to
once again examine the issues in respect whereof he had made the first
report in May, 2011, and on 08.08.2014 he refused to undertake the same
exercise once again by stating that he had already made his report. A perusal
of the file produced before us also shows that while refusing to re-examine
the issues, Dr. Maithani stated that he had already conducted a
comprehensive evaluation in 2011 at the instance of the then Secretary,
Ministry of Rural Development, and that everybody knows that Shri Mangal
Singh has utilized grants more than the amount sanctioned for the purpose.
In his communication, Dr. Maithani also opined that CAPART should not
expect the appellant to furnish audited accounts; flexibility should have been
allowed in this special purpose project, and; the terms and conditions should
have been tailored accordingly. Pertinently, even CAPART appears to have
realized that in rural settings it may not be possible for the innovators/
grantees to produce the vouchers etc. The appellant has pointed out that
CAPART has itself sought to relax the said condition in view of the practical
impossibility in complying with the stringent conditions.
18. The file produced by the respondent CAPART shows that the amount
of Rs.5,00,276/- was found due to the appellant in respect of the two
projects. It is not that the respondent agreed to offer the said amount to the
appellant, only with a view to buy peace even though the said amount was
not due to the appellant. The respondent sought to place restrictions on the
right of the appellant to claim further amounts, and also to deny interest to
him. In view of the aforesaid restrictions, the offer made to the appellant on
23.02.2016 was not accepted by the appellant.
19. From the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in
Writ Petition (Criminal) 172/2011 placed before us, it appears that the
Supreme Court is examining the issue of disbursement of amounts to NGOs
and Voluntary Organizations which have not submitted their audited
accounts. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, in our view,
the said order does not come in the way of the appellant in seeking the
release of the amount of, at least, Rs.5,00,276/- to him which is due to him.
We are, however, not inclined to direct payment of any interest to the
appellant by the respondent CAPART in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
20. So far as the submissions that the appellant has neither submitted
audited accounts, nor the utilization certificate in the prescribed format is
concerned, we find no merit in the same in the facts and circumstances of
this case, taken note of hereinabove. The said requirement was clearly
waived by the respondent while issuing the communication dated
23.02.2016. Apparently, this condition was waived in view of the reports
submitted by the monitors appointed by CAPART, as well as Dr. Maithani's
report. The respondent CAPART has certified that there is no malafide
diversion of the funds granted to the appellant, and he has not been put in
the FAS category. The respondent cannot, therefore, now insist on the
appellant submitting either the audited accounts or the utilization certificate
in the prescribed format.
21. Accordingly, since the amount of Rs.5,00,276/- is clearly due and
payable to the appellant, we allow the present appeal and direct the
respondent CAPART to release the said amount to the appellant.
22. Since the respondents claim that the Supreme Court is seized of the
aforesaid writ petition, and the present claim is also affected by the
proceedings pending before the Supreme Court - a submission with which
we do not agree in the facts of this case, we grant three months' time to the
respondent to release the said amount, so that in case they are aggrieved by
this order, they may avail of their remedies before the Supreme Court in the
meantime.
23. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
AUGUST 16, 2017
SRwt
