JAHANGIR ALOM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of 30 writ petitions virtually involving identical facts and a common of question of law were heard together on 11.11.2010, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. In all these petitions, the grievances of the petitioners are directed against the decision of the State-respondents to entrust the task of identifying the beneficiaries for the scheme under "Mukhiya Mantir Anna Suraksha Yojana, 2010 ("MMASY" for short) to a Selection Committee constituted by them and not to Gaon Sabha and Gaon Panchayats constituted under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. As the facts in all the writ petitions are somewhat identical, it is not necessary to deal with individual cases separately. Suffice it to refer to the facts oin W. P. (C) No. 4543 of 2010, which are illustrative of the materials facts in the remaining writ petitions, for deciding the controversy: this decision will then automatically govern and decide the remaining 29 writ petitions.

(2.) IN WP (C) No. 4543 of 2010, all the petitioners are Gaon Panchayats established under Section 5 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 ("the Panchayat Act" for short) falling within the Pachim Mangaldai Development Block and are represented by the their respective elected Presidents. The petitioner No. 1 is the Aula Chowka Gram Panchayat with a population of 12,000, while the petitioner No. 2 is the Jaljali Gaon Panchayat having a population of 10,500. The petitioner No. 3 is the Dahi Gaon Panchayat with a population of 11,500, while the petitioner No.4 is the Janaram Chowka Gaon Panchayat having a population of 11,000. Similarly, the petitioner No. 5 is the Rangmati Gaon Panchayat with a population of 13,000. All the petitioners admittedly belong to the opposition political party. It is the case of the petitioners that under the provisions of the Act, various functions are assigned to the Gaon Panchayat such as mobilizing voluntary labour and contribution in kind and cash for the community welfare programmes and identification of beneficiaries for the implementation of development scheme pertaining to villages, which are implemented by them through Gaon Sobha. The Gaon Panchayats are discharging their duties on the recommendations of their respective Gaon Sobhas, and identification of the beneficiaries for various schemes are also done by them on the suggestions of the Gaon Sobhas. It is also the case of the petitioners that the devolution of activities concerning the public distribution systems among the various Panchayats has also been reiterated by a Gazette Notification published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary, dated June 25, 2007. By this Notification, it has been made clear that the selection of beneficiaries for various schemes shall be done by the Gaon Panchayat and accordingly all the Gaon Panchayats headed by the petitioners have been identifying and selecting the list of beneficiaries for various schemes till today in consultation with their respective Gaon Sobhas: at no point of time was there any complaint made against the petitioners from any quarter in the identification exercises carried out by them.

(3.) THE writ petition is opposed by the State-respondents. As desired by the learned Additional Advocate General, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State-respondents in W. P. (C) No. 4767 of 2010 is treated as the common affidavit-in-opposition for all the writ petitions. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the State-respondents is that the MMASY scheme is the outcome of the Budget Speech, 2010-11 made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly. Under this scheme, 10 Kgs. of Grade 'A' rice are intended to be provided to each of the selected 13 lakhs poor beneficiary families of the lowest strata of the APL and other families every month at the rate of Rs. 6/- per Kg. THE scheme is meant to provide food security to the deprived families, who, but for the up-gradation of Government of India guidelines on poverty identification, would have been included in the BPL category. With a view to implement the scheme, the State-respondents have formulated the guidelines stipulating that this special scheme would be done by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies, while the distribution of the subsidized rice would be done through the PDS network. THE 'mother statute' that would regulate the effective implementation of the scheme is the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the control orders framed thereunder. It is reiterated that the scheme is a special scheme designed to provide food security to the deprived families and the Government took a conscious policy decision to implement the scheme through the Department of Food and Civil Supplies. THE answering respondents assert that MMASY is not a rural development scheme under the provisions of the Panchayat Act and, as such, reliance placed by the petitioners upon Section 4 (8) and Section 19(XII)(2) and (3) of the Panchayat Act is misconceived. It is also asserted by the answering respondents that MMASY cannot strictly be construed as a poverty alleviation scheme: it rather is a food security system to provide subsidized rice of 10 Kgs per month per family at the rate of Rs.6/- per Kg to the targeted group. According to the respondents, the State-respondents, having regard to impracticability aspect also, does not consider it expedient to directly involve the Gaon Sabha in the process of selection of the beneficiaries of this scheme. THE answering respondents emphasize the fact that the scheme, which is not otherwise violative of any constitutional or statutory provisions, is a time-bound programme which is to be implemented between 15.08.2010 and March, 2011. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, so submits the answering respondents, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. THEre are the sum and substance of the case of the State-respondents.