Partly allowed

Md. Gias Uddin Mazumder v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Dec 2021WP(C)/2284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking re-audit of school accounts was disposed of. The Court directed the Dy. Commissioner to conduct the re-audit within three months, finding a departmental communication sufficiently indicated necessity without requiring further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 8 to carry out re-audit of Hailakandi Town High Madrasa funds for period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Md. Gias Uddin Mazumder Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010056962021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2284/2021

¶5

MD. GIAS UDDIN MAZUMDER

¶6

LT. AMIR ALI MAZUMDER, B.SC. (HONS), B.ED, MA, RETD. ASSTT. TEACHER, HAILAKANDI TOWN HIGH MADRASSA, R/O- VILL- RANGAUTI PART-I, P.O. RANGAUTI, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788155

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT., ASSAM (CIVIL) SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GHY-788006

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 ASSAM 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS HAILAKANDI HDC DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶11

4:THE IN-CHARGE HEADMASTER HAILAKANDI TOWN HIGH MADRASSA P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788155

¶12

5:MD. TAJ UDDIN BARBHUIYA

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

S/O- ABDUS SAMAD BARBHUIYA ASSTT. TECHER (RETD.) HAILAKANDI TOWN HIGH MADRASSA P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788155 6:THE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT HAILAKANDI TOWN HIGH MADRASSA P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788155 7:THE DY. COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788001 8:THE DIRECTOR OF AUDIT (LOCAL FUND) ASSAM GHY ASSAM PIN- 781006 9:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF AUDIT (LOCAL FUND) ASSAM KARIMGANJ CIRCLE DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K DUTTA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 06-12-2021

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for ht petitioner. Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned Standing counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 as well as Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9.

¶23

For the purpose of the order it would suffice to note that by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was the Incharge Superintendent of Hailakandi Town High Madrassa during the period 2012-13 to 2016-17 has, amongst others, prayed for re-audit of the accounts of Hailakandi Town High Madrassa for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017.

¶24

The petitioner projects that the said prayer has been made because in the audit report dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure-15), the report was qualified with a remark to the effect that the documents and vouchers relating to various expenditures were not produced. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time, there were a series of litigations between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 for their appointment to the post of Superintendent of the said school and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is every possibility that the respondent no.5, who was the subsequent incumbent to the office may not have intentionally produced the said files, documents and vouchers which would have a negative impact on his career. On this allegation the Court does not make any opinion.

¶25

In response to the notice of motion issued on 31.03.2021, the

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

respondent nos.4, 5 and 8 have filed their respective affidavit-in-opposition and it appears from Annexure-IV to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.8 that subsequent to complaint made by the petitioner, by a letter dated 14.02.2020, the respondent no.8 had directed the respondent no.9 to conduct an inquiry and pursuant to the inquiry so made, on 27.02.2020, a status-report 06.03.2020 (Annexure-V) was submitted by the respondent no.9 with his opinion to the respondent no.8 to take necessary action for re-audit as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶28

In view of the fact that the inter-departmental communication dated 06.03.2020 which was marked to the petitioner discloses the necessity of reaudit, without any adjudication of the matter, the Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent no.8 would carry out the re-audit of the funds of Hailakandi Town High Madrasa for the period between 01.04.2012 and 31.03.2017 within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶29

With the said direction and observation, the said writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Md. Gias Uddin Mazumder v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Gias Uddin Mazumder v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nurul Amin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pralay Kanti Chowdhury and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Deb Das Saha Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Meghna Choudhury Vs Dr. Satyajit Das and 4 Ors.

Abed Ali Sikdar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Osman Ali Miah @ Osman Ali Vs Mamata Hojai and 2 Ors.