Disposed

Chitragupt Sikshan Sansthan Evam Viklang Vidhyalaya v. Union of India and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019WRIC/11318/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that before fastening liability for fraud or demanding refunds from an NGO blacklisted for alleged misuse of disability grants, the respondents must conduct an inquiry to ascertain actual benefit receipt, especially since some beneficiaries listed as non-receiving may have perished or relocated.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to hold an inquiry within six months to determine actual beneficiary receipt and acceptability of receipts submitted by the petitioner before making any recovery or passing a fin

Chitragupt Sikshan Sansthan Evam Viklang… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11318 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Chitragupt Sikshan Sansthan Evam Viklang Vidhyalaya Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chetan Chatterjee,Ran Vijay Singh,Riyajuddin Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Rahul Anand Gaur,Rahul Anand

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Anand Gaur, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6.

¶7

The petitioner, in the writ petition, is seeking quashing of the order dated 15.09.2014; whereby, it has been blacklisted. The petitioner is also challenging the demand notices dated 06.12.2018 and 03.01.2019.

¶8

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is stated to be a Non Governmental Organisation (hereinafter referred to as, 'NGO') and is based at Village & Post - Sakalpur, Varanasi. The petitioner - NGO is working in the field of social work by the name and style of "Chitragupt Sikshan Santhan, Sakalpur, Varanasi." This NGO was given Rs. 45,50,000/under the grant-in-aid scheme by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs, New Delhi for the financial year 2009-10 for distribution of tricycle and other articles to disabled person in 9 districts, namely, Varanasi, Chandauli, Jaunpur, Mirzapur, Sant

¶9

Ravidas Nagar, Sonebhadra, Azamgarh, Mau and Deoria.

¶10

Earlier, the petitioner was granted similar grantin-aid for the financial year 2008-09 to the tune of Rs. 26,72,000/-. Thereafter, it was also granted a contract for the financial year 2010-11 for a sum of Rs. 84,65,000/- and for the financial year 2011-12 a sum of Rs. 42,00,000/.

¶11

Sometimes, around 2014, there was a complaint that the petitioner - NGO has never distributed tricycles or appliances to disabled persons and therefore, spot inspection was carried out by a team from the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). The team inspected the districts of Azamgarh and Mau as well as Varanasi and Mirzapur. As per the impugned order of blacklisting dated 15.09.2014, it recorded a finding that some of the persons, who are examined, made a statement that they had not received any benefit from the petitioner - NGO; that some persons could not be located and that, some persons had died. The impugned order of 2014 also records that several notices were given to the petitioner, but it did not submit any reply and time was extended upto 05.06.2014 for submitting reply, but after expiry of the said period, the petitioner - NGO submitted receipts on 09.06.2014 and 22.06.2014 for the districts Azamgarh and Mau. The order of 2014 does not show as to what happened after the submission of these receipts and whether the same were examined and verified with reference to the beneficiaries or not.

¶12

After the order of blacklisting dated 15.09.2014 was passed, now notices have been issued on

¶13

06.12.2018 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) and 03.01.2019 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition); wherein, the petitioner has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 45,50,000/-. From a perusal of the order dated 15.09.2014, we find that the same refers to persons who have received benefits or persons who are not traceable or who have died, but it also records that a large number of persons did, in fact, receive the benefits. However, when the petitioner had already submitted certain receipts on 09.06.2014 and 22.06.2014, it was the responsibility of the respondents to examine those receipts and re-check the same with the beneficiaries; that was never done. The order of 15.09.2014 is silent in this regard.

¶14

However, since two notices have been issued to the petitioner on 06.12.2018 and 03.01.2019 for refund of a sum of Rs. 45,50,000/-, we are of the view that the respondents should hold an inquiry into the matter to ascertain exactly as to who are the persons who have received the benefits and who are the persons who have not received the benefits. Merely because some persons are not traceable or have died, is not an indicator that they have not received the benefits. It is the duty of the respondents, before fastening any liability or culpability for committing fraud on the petitioner, to have examined as to where the persons, who have not received the benefits, have gone and whether the persons, who have died, have actually received the benefits and thereafter, died.

¶15

Shri Rahul Anand Gaur, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 prays that the respondents may be granted, at least, six month's time to

¶16

complete the inquiry.

¶17

Since it is an old matter of 2009-10, we, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to hold an inquiry into the matter involving the petitioner, even at the time of inspection in the villages in the concerned districts, and thereafter, pass an order as to whether recovery from the petitioner should be made or not. The respondents shall complete the inquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

Needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry.

¶19

Till such inquiry is completed, no recovery shall be made against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 06.12.2018 and 03.01.2019. The impugned order dated 15.09.2014 shall be subject to any final order that may be passed by the respondents after the enquiry.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.4.2019 Amit Mishra

Chitragupt Sikshan Sansthan Evam Viklang Vidhyalaya v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitragupt Sikshan Sansthan Evam Viklang Vidhyalaya v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Islam Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sakir Parvez Vs Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Dev College Branch and Another

Veer Singh Vs Pashimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and 2 Others

Bharat Singh and 61 Others Vs Election Commission of India and 2 Others

Gaurav Kaushik and 86 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others