BHIL HIRA DOSJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek a direction on the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to pay up the amounts of subsidy which were not paid to these petitioners and others as per the order of the Taluka Development Officer at Annexure "A" to the petition. A direction is also sought on the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to take action against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 under the Indian Penal Code for not having paid the amounts which were entrusted to them for payment to the petitioners and others.

(2.) According to the petitioners, they belong to Scheduled Tribes and under the scheme incorporated in the Government resolution dated 24th Sept. 1980, they were entitled to a subsidy of Rs. 1,000 each alongwith other persons of village Madanagadh. As per that scheme, the Taluka Development Officer, by his order dated 31st March, 1982, a copy of which is at annexure "A" to the petition, ordered payment of subsidy to 33 persons named in the annexure to this order at the rate of Rs. 1,000 each. It was stated in that order that the houses covered under the scheme were already constructed by these persons. The amount of Rs. 33,000.00 which were payable to 33 persons named in the schedule annexed to the order was sent by cheque dated 3 1/03/1982 to the Madanagadh Gram Panchayat, as stated in the order. It is thus, clear that the amount was required to be disbursed immediately after it was sent to the Panchayat by cheque dated 31/03/1982, to the 33 persons named in the schedule to the order. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are at serial Nos. 8 and 33, while the petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are at serial Nos. 9, 10 and 6 respectively of the said schedule of 33 persons annexed to the order of the Taluka Development Officer, Palanpur. According to the petitioners, they were also entitled to Rs. 250 each, by way of additional subsidies ordered to be paid by the Taluka Development Officer, but that amount was also not paid. According to the petitioners, the respondent being an influential person, no action was being taken against him despite several complaints which were made for non-payment, to the State Government and other authorities. One such representation was addressed on 22.6.1984, a copy of which is at annexure "B" to the petition. That was addressed to the District Development Officer and the District Panchayat. It was specifically stated that payments as required to be made under the order of the Taluka Development Officer out of Rs. 33,000 which were given to the Panchayat for disbursement, were actually not made and that forged signatures and thumb marks were created in the name of the persons who were required to be paid.

(3.) Nothing seems to have been done by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 despite such serious allegations which were made. They have not even filed any reply to the present petition.