Dismissed¶¶22

Kundan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Feb 2024WPC/118/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court writ dismissed as infructuous; MANREGA/MGNREGA scheme; irrigation well, Dumri block, Giridih; letter no. 1620 dated 25.11.2014 by MANREGA Commissioner; direction to register FIR against Chief Programme Office and Block Development Officer and initiate departmental proceeding against petitioner; Mate Anita Devi complaint regarding direct payments bypassing Mate; Vigilance and Monitoring Committee; complaint withdrawn in Lok Adalat; no relief granted.

What did the court decide?

In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. ¶¶22

Kundan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 118 of 2015

¶2

Kundan Kumar ----Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The MANREGA Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Giridih

¶7

The Joint Commissioner to the Government, Department of Rural Development, Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Rural Development, Jharkhand

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih ----Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, A.C to S.C-III

¶14

¶15

09 / 16.02.2024 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 1620 dated 25.11.2014, issued by the Respondent No. 2

¶16

– MANREGA Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, directing the Respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Giridih to institute First Information Report against the Chief Programme Office and Block Development Officer and also to initiate Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner including other persons with a further prayer to stay the implementation of the order as contained in the impugned letter dated 25.11.2014 during the pendency of this writ application.

¶17

A scheme was prepared under MANREGA by the Block Development Officer and Block Programme Officer, Dumri for construction of irrigation well over the land of one Kishorilal Gupta on the land appertaining to Khata No. 45, Plot No. 473 area 1.82 decimals and by order dated 14.12.2010, it was sent for technical approval to the Executive Engineer, NREP, Giridih. On 01.03.2011 the Block Development Officer and Block Programme Officer, Dumri directed for holding a Gram Sabha on 06.06.2011 for selection of Mate and Vigilance and Monitoring Committee. Accordingly, Gram Sabha was held and Anita Devi, wife of Kishorilal Gupta was selected as a Mate and five persons from the Job Card Holders were also selected as a member of the Vigilance and Monitoring Committee. Subsequently, work was allotted for construction of the well.

¶18

It appears that after the work was carried out, Mukhiya and Panchayat Sewak made payment to the suppliers directly without consulting the Mate

¶19

¶20

Anita Devi. Accordingly, she made a complaint before the Respondent No. 2- MANREGA Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand. Subsequently, order was passed directing the Respondent No. 3- Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Giridih to institute FIR and also to initiate Departmental Proceeding.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that no action has been taken in the light of the direction contained in letter no. 1620 dated 25.11.2014. Learned counsel further submitted that subsequently in the Lok Adalat, the Mate Anita Devi withdrew her complaint and as such, no action was taken for getting the FIR registered against the petitioner for initiating a Departmental Proceeding.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ application has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Letter no. 1620 dated 25.11.2014 issued by Respondent No. 2 - MANREGA Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, directing Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Giridih to institute a First Information Report against the Chief Programme Office and Block Development Officer and to initiate Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner including other persons.¶¶15
Respondent No. 2 - MANREGA Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand · 25.11.2014
Prior proceeding
A scheme was prepared under MANREGA by the Block Development Officer and Block Programme Officer, Dumri for construction of an irrigation well over the land of Kishorilal Gupta (Khata No. 45, Plot No. 473, area 1.82 decimals), and by order dated 14.12.2010 it was sent for technical approval to the Executive Engineer, NREP, Giridih.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
By direction dated 01.03.2011, a Gram Sabha was convened on 06.06.2011 for selection of a Mate and a Vigilance and Monitoring Committee.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
In the Gram Sabha, Anita Devi, wife of Kishorilal Gupta, was selected as Mate along with five members of the Vigilance and Monitoring Committee from Job Card Holders.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
After the work was carried out, the Mukhiya and Panchayat Sewak made payments to suppliers directly without consulting the Mate.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
The Mate made a complaint before Respondent No. 2 - MANREGA Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand, following which an order was passed directing Respondent No. 3 to institute an FIR and initiate Departmental Proceeding (the impugned letter no. 1620 dated 25.11.2014).¶¶20
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents, in the subsequent Lok Adalat the Mate withdrew her complaint, and consequently no action was taken to register the FIR or initiate the Departmental Proceeding pursuant to the impugned direction.¶¶21

Kundan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jairam Prasad Alias Jay Ram Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radhey Shyam Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Balkrishna Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ram Eqbal Mehta Alias Ram Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.