KANUNI SALAH KENDRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr.H.H.Sompura, Ld. AGP for respondent no.1 to 4 and Mr.H.J.Shah, Ld. Advocate for respondent no.3-4.

(2.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Kanooni Salah Kendra at Ahva in Dangs District has challenged Resolution No. 210 dated 23.3.1999 of the Dangs District Panchayat. For the last about 25 years, prior to the date of the said resolution, the Dangs District Panchayat was running the scheme of arranging programs for propagating social welfare schemes of the Central and State Government and of the District Panchayat for the tribals in the Dangs District in the fields of prohibition, family planning, afforestation, child marriage restraint and adult education. It appears that two parties called Kalapathak and Powada were earlier entrusted staging such performances for propagating the aforesaid ideas before the tribals in the Dangs District. These parties would travel from village to village and reach out to the tribals in the interiors. The expenditure for these programmes was borne by the District Panchayat out of its own funds. However, it appears that the Audit Department had raised objections and also suggested recovery of Rs.86,593.00 for the year 1995-96. However, on account of the aforesaid objections and the notice for recovery, the Dangs District Panchayat passed resolution no.210 dated 23.3.1999 (Annexure H) for discontinuing the programmes from 1.4.99. The said resolution at Annexure H is under challenge to this petition.

(3.) The petitioner is a non-government Orgainisation rendering its socio-legal services in the Dangs District since 1995. The main object of the petitioner Institution is tribal welfare. The State Government had appointed a Committee called Bhuria Committee for suggesting measures for the welfare of the Tribals. The Committee had submitted a report making certain recommendations. The petitioner institution has been working in the Dangs district for creating an awareness amongst the tribals about the recommendations and also to see that the recommendations of the Committee are properly implemented. The petitioner institution also conducts legal awareness training camps etc. No dispute is raised by any of the respondents about the credentials of the petitioner institution.