Writ petition challenging apprehension that village Hekaipara would not be selected for PMAGY. Court observed no replacement plan was made based on respondent's affidavit. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010009252012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 5109/2012
1:RATIN SUTRADHAR and ANR S/O- LT. SARURAM SUTRADHAR
PRESIDENT OF HEKAIPARA USER CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
2: DHANESWAR SUTRADHAR S/O- LT. MUNINDRA SUTRADHAR SECY. OF HEKAIPARA USER CONSTRUTION COMMITTEE BOTH ARE R/O- VILL. and P.O.- HEKAIPARA DIST.- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WPT and BC DEPTT. OF DISPUR GHY- 6.
2:THE DIRECTOR WELFARE OF SCHEDULE CASTES ASSAM GHY- 6.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. BODO LAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR.
4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL WELFARE OFFICER KOKRAJHAR.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A A LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
:: BEFORE ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
-O R D E R-
06.03.2018
Heard Mr. A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. M Ahmed, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India in the year March, 2010 under its policy initiated Pradhan Mantri Adarsh Gram Yojona (PMAGY), a centrally sponsored pilot scheme in order to uplift the living condition of the persons of the Scheduled Caste within the broad ambit and scope of the constitutional provision. As per the guidelines of the said Central Government sponsored scheme, model villages would be planned and for such execution of the policy, some of the villages in Assam were also selected. For the said purpose, the respondent No. 2 entrusted North Eastern Development Planners and Consultant to prepare detailed project report for establishment of model villages in the districts of Dhubri, Kokrajhar, Barpeta and Kamrup. On the other hand, the villages so selected were notified in pursuance whereafter various Village Council Development Committee (for short, ‘VCDC’) were formed. Amongst the various villages, Hekaipara is one of such villages in the district of Kokrajhar. The present petitioners are the members of the said VCDC which was formed in the year 2010 and approved by the Ministry of Welfare of Scheduled Caste. On the basis of the said selection, the petitioners carried out detailed project report along with the aforesaid consultant as per the directives of the respondent No. 2. Apprehending that the said Hekaipara village would be changed by substituting other villages, the President and Secretary of the said VCDC preferred this writ petition for a direction to the respondents not to replace the village Hekaipara for implementation of the model village scheme. As the implementation has already started, the respondent No. 2 filed the affidavit-inopposition wherein paragraphs 8 and 9 it has been specifically stated that there is no plan to replace or change the said village Hekaipara nor the concerned directorate
Page No.# 3/3
has taken any steps for replacement of the said village by any other village. Upon the submission of the learned counsels present, as there is a specific statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 2, as mentioned hereinabove, this writ petition can be closed on the basis of the statement made in the said affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent No. 2.
Accordingly, as there is no such apprehension nor there is any plan to change the village Hekaipara by any other village, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to direct the respondents not to replace the village Hekaipara for the Pradhan Mantri Adarsh Gram Yojana scheme.
Ratin Sutradhar
President of Hekaipara User Construction Committee
The State of Assam
Director Welfare of Scheduled Castes Assam
Director North Eastern Development Planners and Consultant
Prasanta Kumar Deka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
