ESSAKIMUTHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) WRIT Petition No.2108 of 2005, by way of public interest, was preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the sixth respondent to investigate into the violation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India vide its order dated 20th April, 2004 and to prosecute the officers responsible for the misappropriation of the rice and money disbursed for the Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojna in Tuticorin District. According to the petitioner, the Central Government framed various schemes for poverty eradication, rural development, prevention of starvation deaths, for effective public distribution of foodgrains etc., with the objective to provide food to the aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women, destitute men who are in danger of starvation, pregnant and lactating women and destitute children especially in cases where they or members of their family do not have sufficient funds to provide food for them. Towards the said objective, the Union of India framed several schemes viz., Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), Employment Assurance Scheme, later renamed as Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (S.G.R.Y.), Midday Meal Scheme, Integrated Child Development Scheme, National Maternity Benefit Scheme, National Old Age Pension, Annapoorna Scheme and National Family Benefit Scheme. The Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana Scheme was framed to provide work in the drought affected areas for the agricultural wage earners, non -agricultural wage earners and marginal farmers with priority to people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and within this sector particularly to women. The scheme provides for creation of useful community assets that have the potential for generating sustained and gainful employment such as water and soil conservation, afforestation and agro -horiculture, salvipasture, minor irrigation and link roads. All the works to be sponsored under the scheme are selected by the Block Development Officer. The District Collector approves the work, which is sponsored under the S.G.R.Y., and issues the work orders. The said scheme is being implemented in Tuticorin district of Tamil Nadu. There are 10 unions, 8 taluks and 408 panchayats in the Tuticorin district. The Central Government has issued detailed guidelines in respect of implementation of the scheme. Following the said guidelines, the Block Development Officer, Kovilpatti passed orders by letter dated 14th May, 2004 fixing terms and conditions for implementation of the scheme. The said order also lists out the work to be executed under the scheme. As per the guidelines, no machine power should be used for carrying out the work sponsored under S.G.R.Y. The other significant terms and conditions, as shown in the letter dated 14th May, 2004, are as follows: -

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. It appears that in a similar matter before the Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Others in Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2001, wherein an interim order was passed on 20th April, 2004, the Court directed for doubling the foodgrains as also cash in terms of the order dated 2nd May, 2003 and allowed access to all public documents including muster rolls to such persons who seek access and the cost of supply shall not be more than the cost of providing copies of the documents. The State Governments have been directed to utilise the entire allocation, as aforesaid, so that the allotted funds and food grains neither lapse nor result in reduction in subsequent years. In spite of such directions given by the Supreme Court, it appears from the FIR lodged and the statements made in the counter affidavit that the rice, which was meant for the poor, particularly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and were to be given to them pursuant to the scheme in question, has been swindled. WE do not want to make any further observation with regard to the same, as the matter is pending investigation and particularly in Crime No.176 of 2004, in which 21 persons have been cited as accused. WE hope and trust that the criminal case will be concluded at an early date. The respondents are directed to pursue the aforesaid matter vigorously to ensure early justice.