BALU DADA GABHALE Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDIAN Parliament took a lead in the field of Social welfare Legislation when it introduced Article 21-A by the Constitution (Eightysixth amendment) Act, 2002. The object was so laudable and depicted the State's intention to provide free education to children between the age of six to fourteen years, thus guaranteeing the primary education, particularly to the poor section of the society, whose children were not able to receive education for lack of means and limitations of their family. In order to further clarify, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Resolution vide g. R. No. Uniform 2003/c. N. 18/pr7 (26) dated 15th March, 2003 not only to provide education, free of cost, to children but also to supply uniforms, etc. , to the deserving poor students. The Government passed its resolution with an intention that presence of students of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, nomadic Tribes and Denotified Tribes in classes of standards 1 to 4 in primary schools under Zilla Parishad of the State should increase and absence should reduce. The Government had formulated a Scheme, particularly keeping in mind the students whose parents were below the poverty line. Usefully, some salient features of this Scheme can be noticed at this stage:

(2.) BESIDES the above important clauses, the Scheme had taken care to define the quality, colour and strength of the cloth, out of which the uniforms were to be made and supplied to these students. Various officers in the hierarchy of the Government as well as in the Zilla Parishad were responsible for due compliance of the Scheme and resolution that the benefit sought to be provided under the Scheme reaches the deserving. The present case is a glaring example of how a laudable action of the State can be frustrated by its implementing agencies and persons in positions the ones on whom the responsibility to ensure due performance of the Scheme lay. They opted to disregard all parameters and, in fact, made it sure that the object of the Scheme was defeated, and the beneficiaries of the Scheme remained where they were. Despite due intimation and reports of the Committee, the hierarchy in the State Administration failed to take any action against the defaulting persons; and we may regretfully notice that they even failed to remedy the wrong.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation, averring that on 15th March, 2003, the State of Maharashtra have issued the abovementioned Resolution for providing distribution of uniforms, free of cost, to poor students. For manufacture and supply of the uniforms in different Zilla parishads, the contract was given to respondent No. 3, gramin Manila Griha Udyog, Aurangabad, through its Proprietor. On 21st October, 2003, samples of the uniforms were supplied by respondent No. 3; and they were approved after being rejected twice. According to the petitioner, he noticed that firstly, the uniforms were not supplied, and secondly, wherever supplied, they were of such short sizes and made of inferior quality of cloth that they were practically of no use even to the students who were provided with free uniforms. There were serious complaints in this regard; and, therefore, the Zilla Parishad, Nashik, through the Chief Executive Officer, formed a Committee to fix responsibility and take appropriate action in the matter. The Committee so constituted visited the schools, wherein it became clear that the allegations were correct; and, in fact, respondent No. 3 had defrauded the public money. The Committee made inquiries as well as conducted inspection and submitted a report. Relevant part of the said report reads as under :