Partly allowed

Idris Ali v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Feb 2024WP(C)/766/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a BPL card holder, sought a directive for an IAY house benefit. The Court directed the Project Director, DRDA, to enquire if benefits were received. If not found, the petitioner shall be granted benefit under the PMAY scheme within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Project Director, DRDA to conduct an enquiry within 3 months; if no benefit found, respondents to grant PMAY benefit to petitioner.

Idris Ali Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010008632015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/766/2015

¶5

IDRIS ALI

¶6

S/O LT. JAHA MANDAL, R/O VILL. and P.O. KADAMTALA, P.S. ALOPATICHAR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, FAMILY ID NO.42878, SCORE NO.14, PIN-781308

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT and RURAL DEVL. DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVEL. DEPTT. ASSAM PANJABARI ROAD JURIPAR GHY-37

¶10

3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.S. and DIST- BARPETA ASSAM

¶11

4:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRDA BARPETA P.S. and DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 5:THE BLOCK DEVEL. OFFICER MANDIA DEVEL. BLOCK MANDIA

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

P.S. BAGHBAR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781308 6:THE SECY. OF 65 NO. KADAMTALA GAON PANCHAYAT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILL. KADAMTALA P.O. KADAMTALA P.S. ALOPATICHAR MOUZA- BAGHBAR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781308 7:THE PRESIDENT OF 65 NO. KADAMTALA GAON PANCHAYAT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILL. KADAMTALA P.O. KADAMTALA P.S. ALOPATICHAR MOUZA- BAGHBAR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781308 8:JAKIR HUSSAIN C/O BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MANDIA DEV. BLOCK P.S. BAGHBAR DIST BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130

¶14

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Islam, Advocate

¶15

For the respondent (s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate Mrs. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶18

09.02.2024

¶19

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a BPL card holder seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities that

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

the petitioner be granted the benefit of IAY house under the Scheme earmarked for the BPL category family.

¶22

Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.5, i.e. the Block Development Officer, Mandia Development Block stating inter-alia that name of the petitioner was selected in the Action Plan IAY (State Share) for the year 2010-11. As per Government guideline, the fund meant for construction of his IAY house amounting to Rs. 48,500/- was released through A/C payee cheque to the jointly operated account of Md. Zakir Hussain, JE and the petitioner maintained at United Bank of India, Thakurbazar Branch against A/c No. 220453 and it is known that the released fund amount to Rs. 48,500/- was already withdrawn by the concerned Junior Engineer and the beneficiary.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said amount was never received by the petitioner and this aspect of the matter that some fund was released only came into light after the affidavit filed by the respondent No.5. Under such circumstances, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had not received any benefit though the petitioner is entitled to as per the Scheme.

¶24

This Court having taken note of the submission as well as also the pleadings is of the opinion that if the petitioner has not got any benefit till date of the IAY house under the Scheme earmarked for the BPL category family then in that case, the petitioner’s case has to be duly considered for the grant of such benefit. This would however require enquiry to be conducted by the concerned authorities.

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department submits that such enquiry be conducted by the Project Director, DRDA.

¶27

Accordingly, this Court therefore directs that the Project Director, DRDA to conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioner has received any benefit under the IAY Scheme and upon conducting such enquiry if it is found that the petitioner has not received any benefit, then in that case, the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 shall take fresh steps so that the petitioner is granted the benefit in terms with the presently going Scheme, i.e. PMAY.

¶28

The said exercise be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is furnished to the respondent No.4.

¶29

This Court however observes that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any determination, the petitioner is granted the liberty to approach this Court.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Idris Ali v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idris Ali v. the State of Assam and 6 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

Rohit Choudhury Vs Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.

Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. Vs Union of India and 8 Ors.

Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. Vs Union of India and 7 Ors.

Dalilur Rahman Vs Sumit Sattawan, IAS

Khargeswar Deka and 18 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bideswar Moran Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.