High Court of Meghalaya

Shri. Shahajol Abedin vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 2 May, 2024

Author: H.S.Thangkhiew

Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew

 Serial No.32
 Regular List

                           HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                               AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 109 of 2023
                                             Date of Decision :02.05.2024

1.    Shri. Shahajol Abedin
      Son of Shri. Joynal Abedin,
      R/o Sobribari Village,
      PO Sobribari,
      West Garo Hills District,
      Meghalaya - 794104.

2.    Shri. Atiqul Islam,
      Son of (L) Motior Rahman,
      R/o Sobribari Village,
      PO Sobribari,
      West Garo Hills District,
      Meghalaya - 794104.
                                                           ...Petitioners
                -Versus-
1.    State of Meghalaya represented by
      The Principal Secretary to the
      Govt. of Meghalaya,
      Community & Rural Development,
      East Khasi Hills District,
      Shillong, Meghalaya.

2.    The Under Secretary to the
      Govt. of Meghalaya,
      Community & Rural Development Department,
      East Khasi Hills District,
      Shillong, Meghalaya.

3.    The Mission Director,
      State Rural Employment Society,
      Sympli Building, Dhankheti,
      East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

                                     1
 4.    The Project Director, DRDA
      Selsella C&RD Block,
      West Garo Hills District,
      Meghalaya.

5.    The Deputy Commissioner/ District
      Programme Officer, MREGS,
      West Garo Hills District, Tura,
      Meghalaya.

6.    The Block Development Officer/Programme
      Officer, MREGS Selsella C&RD Block,
      Selsella, West Garo Hills District,
      Meghalaya.

7.    The Sobribari VEC
      Represented by its President
      under Selsella C&RD Block,
      P.O. - Sobribari, West Garo Hills District,
      Meghalaya.

8.    Shri. Azizur Rahman,
      Secretary of Sobribari VEC
      under Selsella C&RD Block,
      P.O. - Sobribari, West Garo Hills District,
      Meghalaya.

                                                         ...Respondents.


Coram:
             Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge.

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :        Ms. P.Agarwal, Adv.
                                         Ms. M.L.Tlau, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)           :        Ms. N.G.Shylla, Sr. GA with
                                         Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, GA for R 1-6.
                                         Mr. S.K.Hassan, Adv. for R 7 & 8.



                                     2
 i)      Whether approved for reporting in                   Yes/No
        Law journals etc:

ii)     Whether approved for publication                    Yes/No
        in press:



                    JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The writ petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to direct the

respondent No. 6 who is the Block Development Officer/Programme

Officer, MREGS, Selsella C&RD Block, Selsella, West Garo Hills

District, Meghalaya, not to release the pending funds of the Sobribari VEC

until the final disposal of their complaint dated 21-11-2022, and also for a

direction to the respondents to initiate an enquiry against the respondent

No. 6 with regard to the release of funds for the preceding years 2022-

2023.

2. Ms. P.Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the writ petitioners are job card holders within the said VEC and that they

are aggrieved with the actions of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, who have

discriminated against them and even sought to extort the wages paid to the

other job card holders. It has further been submitted that the manner of

operation of the said VEC under the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is irregular,

especially with regard to the works that have been completed and the

payment that have been released through the respondent No. 6. She further

submits that though enquiries were held, the same was not proper and as

such, she prays that a thorough enquiry be gone into against the respondent

Nos. 7 and 8 more particularly.

3. Ms. N.G.Shylla, learned Sr. GA on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-

6, has submitted that on the complaint of the writ petitioners, enquiries had

been conducted and reports were generated, apart from measurement of the

works. She submits that the writ petitioners had participated in the same

and as such, at this stage, cannot any longer harbour any grievances, apart

from their own personal enmity which they might hold. She further

submits that the wages of the job card holders are directly paid into their

accounts, and if the petitioners have any complaints with regard to any

extortion, they should have taken steps in accordance with law. She

submits that with regard to the said extortion, there is nothing on record to

show that the petitioners have taken any steps before the Police or any

other authorities.

4. Mr. S.K.Hassan, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7

and 8 submits that the writ petitioners have an inimical attitude towards the

respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the discharge of their duties, and have filed this

frivolous writ petition which has no basis. He further supports the

submission made by learned Sr. GA, and prays that the writ petition be

dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. As noted earlier, the prayers are for a direction for conducting an

enquiry and also to question the respondent No. 6 as to the release of funds

to the said VEC. It is further noted that the entire writ petition is based on a

perceived complaint with regard to improper execution of works by the

said VEC under the President and Secretaryship of respondent Nos. 7 and

8. From the materials as placed, it is seen that pursuant to the complaint, a

report dated 11-05-2023, signed by the Enquiry Officer appointed to

conduct the same, had been submitted detailing the enquiry that had been

gone into. The enquiry report for the sake of convenience is reproduced

herein below:

"Enquiry Report of Sobribari VEC Dated : 11/05/2023 On 4th April 2023: Inspections were done along with measurements of the projects in the presence of VEC Functionaries, complainants and Job Card Holders. However, inspections and measurements of all projects could not be completed due to limitation of time. On 14th April 2023: Inspections were done along with measurements of the projects in the presence of VEC Functionaries, complainants and Job Card Holders. The inspections and measurements of the some projects could not be completed and inspection had to be stop owing to the absence of the VEC however the VEC President, complainants and Villagers were present during the inspection but could not identify the projects.

On 10th May 2023: Inspections were done along with measurements of the projects in the presence of VEC Functionaries, complainants and Job Card Holders. While conduction the inspection and measurements of the projects the complainants and VEC functionaries got into a heated argument and the enquiry had to be completed with difficulty.

According to the complainants there were 30 (Thirty) Projects.

With regards to data available in MGNREGS MIS portal, 25 (Twenty Five) projects were allocated to VEC whereas with the remaining 5 (five) projects had only its name entered in MIS but it was not taken up by the VEC.

The complainants had claimed that there were 39 ring wells and 12 Water Tanks but as per the records of the work order issued there were 33 (Thirty Three) ring wells and 11 (Eleven) water tanks.

It is also observed that the projects sanctioned for Sobribari were constructed by the VEC functionaries and Job Card holders as per the guidelines of MGNREGA Act, since the VEC wages component of a sanctioned project is paid through the job card holders account via Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) and the material component of all the projects sanctioned for the VEC were paid through VEC account, so the question of deduction of wage money from job card holders does not arise. It is also found that the projects are visible in the VEC but the signboard/CIB of the projects was damaged since most of the projects were more than four to five years old.

The complainants had claimed that the present VEC functionaries was elected on 12th January 2016 and till date they are functioning as VEC functionaries however there is concrete

documentation that the previous election was held on 20th December 2019 (enclosed as Annexure-I).