SURGICAL ELECTRONIC Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition relates to the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Government of India's Scheme of Assistance to Disabled Persons for purchase/fitting of aids/appliances (for short, 'the ADIP Scheme') by the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India, Kanpur (Respondent No. 2). The petitioners are two 'Implementing Agencies' nominated by Respondent No. 2. They pray for the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) to implement an order stated to have been passed on 19.4.1991 by the Minister of State for Welfare and also to restrain Respondent No. 1 from getting the ADIP Scheme implemented through Respondent No. 2 and from giving any grant/financial aid to Respondent No. 2 under the said Scheme.

(2.) The petitioners have produced a copy of the ADIP Scheme. The main objective of this Scheme was to assist needy physically handicapped persons in procuring durable, sophisticated and scientifically manufactured modern standard aids and appliances that could promote their physical, soda] and psychological rehabilitation. The scheme was to be implemented through centres run by Companies registered under the Companies Act, Registered Societies, Trusts or any other institutions recognised by the Ministry of Welfare for the purpose. According to the petitioners, the implementation of the ADIP Scheme was entrusted to approved agencies including Respondent No. 2 which is a Government of India undertaking, wholly administered and controlled by Union of India (Respondent No. 1). Respondent No. 2 started implementing the ADIP Scheme through Limb Fitting Centres and other agencies who can provide limb fitting services, who were selected and nominated as Implementing Agencies. The petitioners have produced a copy of the instructions published by Respondent No. 2 for the purpose of implementing the scheme. The petitioners are two of the Implementing Agencies appointed by Respondent No. 2. It is alleged that even though at the beginning things moved smoothly, with the passage of time. Respondent No. 2 started frustrating the purpose of the scheme and became a den of corruption. Senior officers of Respondent No. 2 and some officials of Respondent No. 1, in connivance with each other, are 'siphoning of the major part of the grant/finance in their personal pockets. It is further alleged that when the petitioners came to know about the corruption and malpractices in the offices of the respondents, they started complaining about it to the Ministry and other concerned persons. Members of Parliament raised questions in the Parliament and also sent letters to the Government about the corruption in the offices of the respondents and misuse of Government money. This, according to the petitioners, resulted in the withholding of legitimate dues to the petitioners. The petitioners were also stopped by Respondent No. 2 from implementing the ADIP Scheme on flimsy and baseless grounds. It is further alleged that the petitioners were victimised and singled out in the matter of implementing the scheme. Though the petitioners submitted to the Respondent No. 2 bills, in respect of the services rendered by them. Respondent No. 2 did not make the payments inspite of repeated requests and demands. The petitioners were directed by Respondent No. 2 to suspend the implementation of the ADIP Scheme since allocated funds had already been fully utilised. Even after Respondent No. 2 received further grants from Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 2 did not pay the pending bills submitted by the petitioner or give permission to organise programmes under the ADIP Scheme. According to the petitioners, the complaints made by agencies like the petitioners and by the Members of Parliament led to the ordering of four inquiries into the allegations of malpractices, corruption, mismanagement and embezzlement of funds in the offices of the respondents. The inquiries were ordered by the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Welfare at the relevant time. It is also stated in the petition that the CBI is also investigating the matter. According to the petitioners the conclusion of all the inquiries was that some officials of Respondent No. 2 were guilty of corruption, malpractices and mismanagement. Thereupon the Minister of State in the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, passed an order on 19.4.1991, directing three things:

(3.) The petitioners have also made some personal allegations against Respondent No. 3, Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Private Secretary to the Minister, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India. It is alleged that Respondent No. 3 is one of the officers in the Ministry of Welfare who were responsible for the corruption, malpractices, mismanagement, etc., in the offices of the respondents. The petitioners also hold him responsible for withholding the legitimate dues of the petitioners and for not allowing them to implement the ADIP Scheme. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 3 has openly said that he would ruin the petitioners and would not allow them to receive their legitimate dues or to start implementation of the ADIP Scheme.