A KAMALADHAR GUPTA Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Malla Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department, Mr. V. Vishwanadham, Mr. Suryaprakash Rao and Ms. P. Sharada appearing for the respective respondents.

(2.) The petitioners are social workers. They have deep concern towards development and welfare of citizens more particularly downtrodden people. According to them they have been undertaking various welfare activities keeping in view the public interest. A few welfare activities initiated by them have been detailed in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioners claim that they have also been doing social work by protecting the State interest and Revenue and also serving the needy people whenever there is exigency. The petitioners submit that the Government of India, the first respondent herein sponsored a Scheme popularly known as Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (hereinafter called 'the Scheme'). The second respondent, Government of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, represented by Principal Secretary has issued G.O. Ms. No. 386, dated 17-7-1992 creating 5th respondent herein as a Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 for channeling of loans and subsidy from Hyderabad Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) to the Municipalities for implementation of the Scheme in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd respondent is Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration who is Ex-Officio Managing Director of 5th respondent. The fourth respondent is the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, which is the authority to approve type and design of the construction submitted by the Engineers. The fifth respondent, Andhra Pradesh Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The sixth respondent is Regional Chief HUDCO, Hyderabad, designated as agency to release both subsidy and loan component. The seventh respondent is Regional Director-Appellate Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Warangal, which has got supervisory and functional jurisdiction. The eighth respondent is the District Collector of Adilabad District. The ninth, tenth and eleventh respondents are Commissioner of Municipality, Municipal Engineer and Manager of the Municipality, Nirmal Town, Adilabad District respectively who are directly connected with the Scheme in all respects and are parties to the implementation of the Scheme insofar as Nirmal Town is concerned. The present writ petition is confined only to the implementation of the Scheme in Nirmal Town.

(3.) The writ petition is being filed as public interest litigation for protecting Public Interest and preventing public injury. It has been filed seeking enforcement of fundamental rights of weaker sections who are unable to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their ignorance, illiteracy poverty and lack of knowledge in the schemes while challenging the unauthorised action of the respondents in implementing the beneficial schemes floated by the Government of India for the welfare of the downtrodden people at large so as to improve their poor sanitary conditions prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and more particularly in Nirmal Town. The Scheme is aimed at abolishing the practice of manual handling of night soil and liberation of scavengers. The purpose of the Scheme is to convert dry latrines into water seal pour flush latrines. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in its efforts to implement various measures to ameliorate the living conditions of scavengers and to improve poor sanitary conditions have implemented the scheme. Under this programme the beneficiary has to contribute for construction of a sanitary latrine depending on his income group and subsidy will be sanctioned to the beneficiary based on his income. The benefit under the Scheme was been extended only to the economically weaker sections whose monthly income does not exceed Rs. 1,250.00. Under the said Scheme, the Government of India contributed its subsidy of 45%; HUDCO contributed 50% of the required amount in the form of loan; and the remaining 5% is the beneficiary's contribution. The beneficiary i.e., the owner of a latrine-less house shall submit his application in the prescribed proforma for construction of a latrine through the concerned Municipality by enclosing required documents, viz., Agreement, Advances Receipt and willingness to entrust the work to a Municipal Contractor, Latest Property Tax Receipt, Demand Draft for the contribution payable by the beneficiary, an extract of ration card and certificate of income issued by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer and passport size photos. The applications shall be entertained strictly from House owners whose names are found in the survey register and who are served with notices for construction of new latrines. The received applications in full shape have to be forwarded to concerned Assistant Engineer for inspection and report who shall inspect the premises and submit his report regarding construction of new latrine and the availability of space for construction of a new latrine. Subsequently all the applications have to be scrutinised by the Municipal Engineer to ensure that the applicant satisfies all the requirements. Thereafter, all the applications, which are in order, shall be placed before the Municipal Council for sanction of subsidy and loan for construction of new latrines. After the proceedings are issued to the beneficiary sanctioning the unit, all the particulars shall be entered in a register. As far as inspection is concerned, the Municipal Engineer shall make inspection and ensure that the units are constructed as per the type and design approved by the Engineer in-Chief, Public Health, the 4th respondent herein. It is mandatory on the part of the respondents to obtain Satisfactory Completion Certificate from the beneficiary. According to the petitioners, the 9th respondent is also under legal obligation to inspect personally atleast 20% of units before payment is made to the Contractor. This apart, the 9th respondent is also under obligation to submit progress report to the 7th respondent enabling him to submit a consolidated report to the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is equally mandatory on the part of the 7th respondent to make inspection of all the municipalities within his jurisdiction every month and ensure that the units are constructed as per the guidelines issued by the Government and that the funds so released under the Scheme are utilised properly.