Manipur High Court
Chington Development Society vs Union Of India on 8 November, 2021
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P (C) No. 158 of 2021
Chington Development Society, Regd. No. 418(a)/M/SR/88/95,
represented by its President Shri D.P. Philip aged about 59 years,
S/o N.G. Pani, Phaibung Khullen Village, P.O. & P.S. Tadubi,
Senapati District, Manipur.
.... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Women & Child Development, Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi - 11000.
2. State of Manipur, represented by Commissioner, Department
of Women and Child Development, Govt. of Manipur at
Secretariat, Imphal - 795001.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
For the petitioner ∷ Shri Serto T. Kom, Advocate
For the respondents ∷ Shri S. Vijayanand Sharma, CGC &
Shri Niranjan Sanasam, GA.
Date of Hearing ∷ 27-10-2021
Date of Judgment & Order ∷ 08-11-2021 [30-10-2021 to 07-11-
2021 being holiday]
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Shri Serto T. Kom, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner; Shri S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned CGC appearing for the
respondent No.1, Union of India and Shri Niranjan Sanasam, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent.
[2] The validity and correctness of the letter dated 27-01-2021 issued
by the Under Secretary to the Government of India is under challenge in
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[2]
this writ petition and in addition thereto, a prayer has been made to direct
the Union of India to reconsider the case of the petitioner for the Ujjawala
project based on the report of the State Government that there is no
Ujjawala project in Senapati District, Manipur after its bifurcation into
Senapati and Kangpokpi Districts, Manipur.
[3.1] The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the
Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 with the objects of rendering
service to the general society including the assistance to be provided to
the Government towards the implementation of the programmes and
projects contributing to progressive and total human development.
[3.2] The Ujjawala scheme is a comprehensive scheme for Prevention
of Trafficking and Rescue, Rehabilitation and Re-integration of victims of
trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. Only the selected voluntary
Organisations/ NGOs are part of the agencies to implement the said
scheme. On coming to know about the decision of the Ministry of
Women & Child Development, Government of India to set up Ujjawala
home in all the districts of Manipur which do not have Ujjawala home
during the year, 2019-20, the petitioner applied for the said project of
Ujjawala home for the year 2019-2020, because Senapati District of
Manipur within which the society is functioning, doesn't have Ujjawala
home after the bifurcation of the said district into Senapati and Kangpokpi
Districts vide notification/ order dated 08-12-2016 issued by the
Government of Manipur.
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[3]
[3.3] Pursuant to the said application of the petitioner, the
Project Sanctioning Committee for screening the project proposal for
Grant-in-Aid under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister, Social
Welfare, Manipur, held a meeting on 28-09-2019 and resolved to
recommend eight Societies/ NGOs for various districts including the
petitioner. The said proceeding of the committee dated 28-9-2019 was
forwarded by the Government of Manipur to Ministry of Women & Child
Development, Government of India vide its letter 28-09-2019. Thereafter,
the Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 24-12-2019 forwarded the
required "Need Based Assessment Report", in respect of the petitioner,
wherein it is mentioned that there is not a single Ujjawala home in the
entire district of Senapati, Manipur.
[3.4] The Union of India vide its letter dated 20-03-2020 requested the
Government of Manipur to furnish the details of the bifurcation of the
erstwhile Senapati District into Senapati and Kangpokpi Districts,
obviously, to ascertain the claim that there is no Ujjawala project in
Senapati District for which the petitioner has been recommended. The
Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 07-07-2020 sent a detailed
report about bifurcation of Senapati District including a clarification that
there is no Ujjawala project/ home in the present Senapati District and that
the petitioner has been recommended by the Project Selection Committee
(PSC) for Ujjawala home in the present Senapati District.
[3.5] The Union of India vide its order/ letter dated 04-03-2020
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[4]
conveyed the sanction of grant to NGOs for setting up Uijawala home in
the new districts of Manipur but unfortunately, it failed to consider the case
of the petitioner for the Senapati District, Manipur which also does not
have an Ujjawala home. The petitioner made a representation dated 20-
07-2020 to the Union of India thereby requesting it to reconsider its case.
As the Union of India failed to dispose of the petitioner's
representation dated 20-07-2020, the petitioner approached this Court by
way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.455 of 2020 wherein this Court
passed an order dated 15-09-2020 and further, order dated 02-12-2020 in
Review Petition No.14 of 2020 directing the Union of India to dispose of its
representation dated 20-07-2020 within a period of two months therefrom.
The Union of India, in compliance with this Court's orders, issued the order
dated 27-01-2021 thereby disposing of the petitioner's representation
dated 20-07-2020 and decided that it was not possible for it to approve the
Ujjawala project to the petitioner without receiving the recommendation of
the Project Sanctioning Committee chaired by the Secretary (WCD), State
of Manipur for year, 2020-21. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 27-01-
2021, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that
the act of the Union of India was arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable,
discriminatory and non- application of mind in view of the fact that the
petitioner's case for Ujjawala scheme was already recommended to the
Union of India by the competent authority viz: Project Sanctioning
Committee vide proceeding dated 28-09-2019 for the Senapati District,
Manipur along with other NGO's for other districts of Manipur, through the
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[5]
covering letter dated 28-09-2019. The cases of other NG0's for Ujjawala
which were recommended along with the petitioner, were considered by
the Union of India after receiving the "Need Based Assessment Report"
from the Government of Manipur but unfortunately, the case of the
petitioner was left out on the pretext of seeking details of Ujjawala home
after the bifurcation of Senapati District into Senapati and Kangpokpi
Districts vide letter dated 20-03-2020. In fact, the Union of India was
already informed that after the bifurcation of Senapati into two districts,
there is no Ujjawala home in Senapati District, as can be seen at para (vi)
of the Need Assessment Report of the newly Proposed Ujjawala project in
the Senapati District vide letter dated 20-03-2020.
[4.1] In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it has been
stated that the Government of India is implementing the Ujjawala scheme
which is a comprehensive scheme for prevention of trafficking with five
specific components-Prevention, Rescue, Rehabilitation, Reintegration and
Repatriation of victims of trafficking. The scheme has been conceived
primarily for the purpose of preventing trafficking on the one hand and
rescue and rehabilitation of victims on the other. The relevant portion of the
scheme's guidelines reads as under:
"H. SANCTION OF NEW PROJECT UNDER THE SCHEME
a. The State Government will assess the number of new projects
required in the State and communicate to the Joint Secretary in
charge of the Scheme in the Ministry of Women and Child
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[6]
Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
along with justification by 30th September of every year. Subject
to availability of resources, the Central Government will
communicate number of projects those can be approved and
make necessary provision in the budget of subsequent financial
year.
b. The State Government may invite applications from eligible
organizations and the proposals which fulfill the norms may be
placed before a Project Sanctioning Committee (PSC) chaired
by Secretary (WCD) of the State/UT concerned and comprising
representatives from the Finance and Labour Department of the
State/UT in addition to any other representatives as the State
Government /UT administration may decide.
c. Grant of the Ujjawala Scheme is sanctioned initially for a period
of 3(three) years. After implementation for 3(three) years period,
the Project Sanctioning Committee may decide on its further
continuance or otherwise depending on its performance and
need"
[4.2] In the financial year 2019-20, the Ministry received the proposals
for 10 new Ujjawala projects, when there were already 19 Ujjawala homes
functioning in the State. In some of the districts, there were already two
existing projects functioning and when the State Government proposed for
additional projects in these districts, in some of them the Ujjawala scheme
was not being implemented. Therefore, it was considered to approve one
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[7]
project in each of the districts where there were no existing Ujjawala
projects/ homes functioning. The districts where no Ujjawala project was
functioning, were identified as Tengnoupal, Noney and Pherzwal Districts,
Manipur and accordingly, it was proposed that the State Government
should, from amongst the proposed projects, choose one NGO in each
district of Tengnoupal, Noney and Pherzwal for implementation of Ujjawala
scheme. It was also mentioned that the said three NGOs should be chosen
on the basis of expertise in the area of prevention of human trafficking and
experience. As per the records, since there was an existing Ujjawala
project in the Senapati District, none of the projects was approved for the
Senapati District. The bifurcation of Senapati District was informed by the
State Government later. Therefore, the name of Chington Development
Society was not considered for sanction of new Ujjawala homes for the
financial year, 2019-20. Subsequently, when the State Government vide its
letter dated 07-07-2020 informed about the details of the bifurcation of
Senapati District into two-Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts and also of two
Ujjawala homes which were currently functioning, having fallen in the
Kangpokpi District after bifurcation, they were requested vide this
Ministry's letter dated 15-07-2020 to furnish fresh Project Sanctioning
Committee's recommendation for the financial year, 2020-21 with requisite
documents for new proposal in Senapati District. The response from the
State Government is still awaited despite three reminders being sent to
them. Since the Project Sanctioning Committee constituted in the Social
Welfare Department, Government of Manipur recommended the project of
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[8]
the Chington Development Society for the financial year, 2019-20, the
name of Chington Development Society was not considered for sanction of
new Ujjawala home in the financial year, 2019-20. In other words, as per
scheme guidelines, it was not possible for the Union of India to consider
the Ujjawala project for the Chington Development Society without
receiving the recommendation of duly constituted Project Sanctioning
Committee chaired by the Secretary, Women and Child Development
(WCD) of the State Government for the financial year, 2020-21.
[5] The petitioner, in its rejoinder, has stated that the Union of India
was already aware of the fact that Senapati District, after its bifurcation into
Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts, has no Ujjawala project, as is evident
from the letter dated 24-12-2019 of the State of Manipur enclosing the
Need Assessment Report and therefore, the petitioner's case could have
been considered for the financial year, 2019-20 along with other NGOs
being recommended by the State Government. As regards the fresh
recommendation, it has been stated that as the Union of India was
informed that there was no Ujjawala project in Senapati District, it could
have approved it for sanctioning and that there was a failure on the part of
the Union of India which shows that the Union of India was hell-bent not to
consider the case of the petitioner.
[6] The Ujjawala scheme is a comprehensive scheme launched by
the Union of India for prevention of trafficking with five specific
components- Prevention, Rescue, Rehabilitation, Reintegration and
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[9]
Repatriation of victims of trafficking. This Court is not aware of the details
of the said scheme, as a copy of the scheme is not placed on record by
any of the parties in the matter. In other words, this Court has no occasion
to examine the details contained in the said scheme. But from the affidavit
filed on behalf of the Union of India, it is seen that it is the State
Government which has to assess the number of new projects required in
the State and communicate it to the Union of India along with justifications
by 30th September of every year. The proposals received by the State
Government which fulfill the norms, will have to be placed before a Project
Sanctioning Committee (PSC) chaired by the Secretary (WCD) of the
concerned State/ UT. On the basis of the recommendation of the Project
Sanctioning Committee and after having considered it, the grant of the
Ujjawala scheme is sanctioned initially for a period of three years and after
the implementation thereof for three years, the Project Sanctioning
Committee may decide on its further continuance or otherwise depending
on its performance and need.
[7] In the present case, on the basis of the recommendation of the
Project Sanctioning Committee, the State Government proposed eight new
projects for the year, 2019-20 including that of the petitioner. However, it is
nowhere stated either in the covering letter dated 28-09-2019 or in the
recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee itself that an
Ujjawala project was recommended for the Senapati District on the ground
that it had no Ujjawala project, even though Senapati District had already
been bifurcated into Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts in the year, 2016. In
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[10]
the Need Assessment Report, it has been stated that in Senapati District,
there is no Ujjawala funded by the Union of India but it is nowhere
specifically stated therein that Senapati District, referred to therein, is not
the old Senapati District but the new Senapati District after the old one
being bifurcated into two districts in the year, 2016 which has led to the
present confusion and controversy with the result that the sanction of grant
vide letter dated 04-03-2020 was allocated to NGOs functioning in the
districts i.e, Tengnoupal, Noney and Pherzwal only. In other words, the
State Government appears to have not informed the Union of India earlier
in clear terms that there is no Ujjawala scheme in the Senapati District
after the bifurcation. Therefore, the State Government appears to have
written a letter dated 13-03-2020 to the Union of India informing about the
bifurcation of Senapati District as is evident from the letter dated 20-03-
2020 of the Union of India whereby it had requested the State Government
to provide details of their sub-divisions which the State Government did it
vide its letter dated 07-07-2020. On receipt thereof, the Union of India vide
its letter dated 15-07-2020 requested the State Government to furnish a
fresh recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee.
[8] The stand of the Union of India as expressed in its affidavit, is that
since no fresh recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee was
furnished by the State Government as requested with three reminders, it
was not possible for it to approve and grant Ujjawala project to the
petitioner. From the materials placed on record, it is not clear as to whether
the Union of India was aware of the bifurcation of Senapati District into
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[11]
Kangpokpi and Senapati Districts before the said eight new projects being
proposed by the State Government. In the affidavit filed on its behalf, it has
been stated that as per the record, Ujjawala projects were found to be
functioning in Senapati District, which had, in fact, fallen in the area of
Kangpokpi District after the said bifurcation. Therefore, the present
controversy may have probably arisen due to lack of proper
communication and co-ordination between the Union of India and the State
Government. Whatever may have been the reason for the controversy, it is
the petitioner which has ultimately suffered loss and injury without its fault.
Since no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government, it is
not known to this Court as to why it failed to furnish a fresh
recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee for the year, 2020-
21. Had a fresh recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee for
the year, 2020-21 been furnished by the State Government in time, the
present controversy could have been avoided and the petitioner's case
could have been considered by the Union of India for the year, 2020-21
itself.
[9] Leave aside the year, 2020-21 which is already over, the current
financial year, 2021-22 is also coming to an end in few months. What is
going to be the fate of the petitioner for the year, 2021-22, is quite
uncertain because the stand of the State Government is not disclosed to
this Court in the form of an affidavit. It may be noted at this juncture that in
fact, the petitioner cannot, as of right, claim that it be granted Ujjawala
project by the Union of India and in terms of the guidelines as stated in the
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[12]
affidavit of the Union of India, the grant of Ujjawala project depends upon
the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning Committee. However, the
State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably
and it is the State Government which has to constitute it, cannot remain
silent but to take an appropriate decision in that regard. It is the Project
Sanctioning Committee which has to examine the proposals and take a
decision considering various factors either to recommend or not to
recommend an NGO like the petitioner for grant of Ujjawala project. The
unfortunate part is that the case of the petitioner has not been considered
for the year, 2020-21 by the Union of India for want of fresh
recommendation. In any case, the fact remains that Senapati District, after
the bifurcation, has no Ujjawala project and has a right to be considered by
the Government of India provided its case is recommended by the Project
Sanctioning Committee on merit. In other words, in order to consider the
case of the petitioner by the Union of India, a recommendation of the
Project Sanctioning Committee is indispensable. It may further be noted
that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Project
Sanctioning Committee for the year, 2019-20 mainly on the ground that
there is no, at present after the bifurcation in the year, 2016, Ujjawala
home in Senapati District and the circumstances prevailing in Senapati
District, at that time, appear to remain unchanged till date.
[10] In view of the above and for the reason stated hereinabove, the
instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
[13]
(a) The respondent No.2, State of Manipur shall constitute a Project
Sanctioning Committee, if not already constituted, within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
and order, which will examine the proposal in respect of the
petitioner within two weeks thereafter and in the event of the
petitioner's case being recommended by the Project Sanctioning
Committee, its recommendation shall be sent by the State
Government, at the earliest possible, to the Government of India
for consideration;
(b) After the receipt of the recommendation of the Project Sanctioning
Committee from the State Government, the respondent No.1,
Union of India shall consider the case of the petitioner within three
weeks thereforem and take a decision, accordingly, by granting
Ujjawala project in favour of the petitioner for the year, 2021-22.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
Date: 2021.11.09
VICTORIA 10:42:22 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 158 of 2021 Contd.../-
