In a writ petition concerning the constitution of the District Rural Development Authority Board, the Court noted that the relevant scheme pertained to the Eleventh Five Year Plan, which had expired. Treating statements in the counter affidavit as admitted, the Court held the petition infructuous.
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.
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.819 of 2013
Mihir Kumar Singh, S/o Janmanjay Singh, R/o Chakulia, P.O.-Kashi Jharia, P.S.-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus
…… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jagdish, AC to SC-I ----------------------------
04 / Dated 10th March, 2021
The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality.
Mr. Jagdish, learned AC to SC-I has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 on 27.06.2013 which contains a communication issued under the signature of Special Secretary to the Rural Development Department, Government of State of Jharkhand being Letter No.3092 dated 28.05.2013 whereby and whereunder the question pertains for adjudication in the instant writ petition which is concerned with the conferment of power upon the Chairman of the Managing Board of the District Rural Development Authority.
He submits that the aforesaid scheme has been made effective from 01.04.1999 being a Central sponsored scheme which was on the
[2]
basis of the apportionment of share in the ratio of 75:25 in between the Central Government and the State Government respectively.
He further submits that the aforesaid scheme is exclusively for the 11th Five Year Plan as would appear from the stipulation made under para-5 (viii) of the letter dated 28.05.2013, as such, since the period of 11th Five Year Plan has elapsed in the year 2012 and we are now in the era of NITI Ayogya, therefore, the issue which has been agitated in the instant writ petition has lost its efficacy since the efficacy of the Plan itself has gone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner since has not filed any response to the said counter affidavit, therefore, statement made in the counter affidavit has been treated to be admitted.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the nature of the prayer made in this writ petition which pertains for adjudication of the issue about the constitution of the Board of the District Rural Development Authority.
It appears from Annexure-A appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the scheme, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition, has been made effective and decided to wound up by the end of the 11th Five Year Plan and since the period of 11th Five Year Plan has already lapsed, therefore, nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition.
In view thereof, the instant writ petition is rendered to be infructuous, accordingly, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking adjudication regarding the constitution of the Board of the District Rural Development Authority is maintainable given the lapse of the Eleventh Five Year Plan.
Whether the scheme underlying the petitioner's claim has lost efficacy due to the expiration of the applicable Plan period.
Mihir Kumar Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
Secretary, Rural Development, Department Govt. of India
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
