MANAGER, BIRJU YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Naveen Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Roy, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 10/5/2008 directing the petitioner to pay R 5 lacs which was advanced from the fund of Member of Parliament for local development in a district (For short MPLAD) to which the concerned Member represents, failing which it is directed that coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner taking recourse to the provisions prescribed for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue.

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the basis of the proposal forwarded by the then Members of Parliament representing district Mau a parliamentary constituency, vide letter dtd. 2/1/2006 for disbursement of amount of R 10 lacs for construction of the school, to the petitioner society which runs Harijan Primary Pathshala situate at Chakaudi Sultani. It appears that after preliminary enquiry/investigation was conducted in the matter and the revenue records were submitted by the petitioner the disbursement of first installment of R 5 lacs i.e., 50 per cent of the total amount was made on 31/2/2006. Although, the first disbursement had taken place after the preliminary enquiry got conducted relating to the matter as to the eligibility of the petitioner in getting aid for the purposes of the construction of the building of the school from MPLAD fund, some further enquiry was conducted and a letter was forwarded by the Magistrate, Mohammadabad, Mau on 6/12/2006 requiring the petitioner to submit the computerized copy of Revenue Extract/Annual Register relating the land in question as there appeared to be difference in the computerized record and manually prepared record. It was admitted that the school was situate on Plot No. 192 however, certain part of the land that belonged to the school to the extent of 25 kadis fell in village Utpal, an adjoining village and thus a conclusion was drawn by the District Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner got the disbursement of fund by misrepresentation and fraud in getting the document prepared and submitted, which if had come to the knowledge of the authorities the disbursement of the land could not have been made. Consequently, an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner for committing such alleged fraud under Sec. 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. as Case Crime No. 182A/2008 on 25/2/2008. However, in the meanwhile, the impugned order was also got passed on the basis of some directives issued by the Chief Development Officer, Mau dtd. 23/2/2008 to get the amount of first installment, disbursed to the petitioner, recovered. It is in this light that the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay back the amount failing which coercive measures shall be adopted for recovery of the same.