Partly allowed

Animesh Mondal @ Animesh Mandal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 Mar 2021WPA/4297/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of a writ petition filed by Animesh Mondal regarding non-disbursal of PMAY-G funds. Despite the petitioner's name appearing in the beneficiary list, the grant was withheld. The court directed the Block Development Officer to consider the pending representation within four months and pass a reasoned order. If entitled, funds must be disbursed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 7 to consider petitioner's representation within four months, pass reasoned order, and disburse funds if eligible.

Animesh Mondal @ Animesh Mandal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

18.03.2021 SL No. 118 Court No.24 (P.M.)

¶2

WPA 4297 of 2021

¶3

Animesh Mondal @ Animesh Mandal. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Shamim Ul Bari,

¶5

Mr. Gourab Kumar Nath … for the petitioner

¶6

Mr. Sudipto Panda … for the State

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though his name has been incorporated in the list of beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Scheme (Gramin) the money has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner till date.

¶8

The petitioner submits that his name appeared at Serial No. 185 of the final list of beneficiaries prepared by the Block Development Officer, Sandeshkhali – I Panchayet Samity. The petitioner further submits that rest of the beneficiaries in the said list has already received the grant in terms of the aforesaid Yojana but the petitioner has been left out illegally.

¶9

The petitioner claims to have made representation before the respondent authorities including the Block Development Officer. The same has not been considered till date.

¶10

As it appears that the representation of the petitioner highlighting his grievances is pending consideration at the

¶11

¶12

end of the respondent authorities, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the respondent no. 7 being the Block Development Officer, Sandeshkhali-I Panchayet Samity to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated 20^th February, 2018, strictly in accordance with the relevant guidelines/scheme/regulations/circulars at the earliest, but positively within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The said respondent shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner, immediately thereafter.

¶14

If the aforesaid respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit in terms of the aforesaid scheme, necessary steps shall be taken for disbursal of funds in favour of the petitioner at the earliest.

¶15

The petitioner is directed to forward a copy of the representation dated 20^th February, 2018 to the aforesaid respondent at the time of communicating the order of this Court.

¶16

WPA 4297 of 2021 stands disposed of.

¶17

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

¶18

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on completion of usual formalities.

¶19

( Amrita Sinha, J.)

Animesh Mondal @ Animesh Mandal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Animesh Mondal @ Animesh Mandal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

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

Satirani Ghosh Vs Yhe Kolkata Municial Corporation and Ors.

Snehasis Barua Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kamrun Nisha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tapan Kumar Seal and Ors. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

M/S. Sumanta Susanta Overseas Private Limited and Anr. Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Md. Hafiz Mullick Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.