MARQUIS KHARUMNUID Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners, by way of the instant writ petition have complained about the alleged misutilisation of funds in the implementation of the scheme for construction of latrines under the Swatch Bharat Mission. The writ petitioners have prayed that an inquiry be conducted against the concerned respondent BDO, as also the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7, for the said alleged misappropriation, besides a prayer against the exclusion of names of the writ petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 from the beneficiary list.

(2.) Ms. A.Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the implementation of the scheme, the sanctioned amount for each beneficiary was not released, but infact, only a portion of the same was disbursed to the beneficiaries. She further submits that after the first list of beneficiaries had been published, the respondents without any approval or authority had released a second list. It has also been contended that in the implementation of the scheme, no proper inspection was carried out, and neither, were the prescribed guidelines for the construction of such latrines followed, which has resulted in loss of public money. She therefore prays that appropriate orders be passed directing for a proper impartial inquiry to be gone into so as to unearth the misappropriation and defalcation of funds by the respondent BDO, as also the private respondent Nos. 6 & 7, and that the amount which stands unreleased to the beneficiaries be released forthwith.

(3.) Mr. H.Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1-4 submits that there has been no illegality in the implementation of the said scheme and that regular inspections were carried out by the respondents for ensuring timely completion of the works. RTI queries to this effect had also been replied, and that the identification and selection of the beneficiaries, which is the sole responsibility of the village authority had also been undertaken by the said village authorities. Further, he submits that the amounts as due, have been fully released to the beneficiaries and that an FIR which had been filed by the petitioners, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate, was also subsequently withdrawn, and the accused therein were all acquitted.