MOHAN RONGPI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. F. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition, in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has been instituted by Sri Mohan Rongpi, a resident of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council area, alleging serious irregularities in implementation of various Minor Irrigation schemes and Flow Irrigation schemes, sanctioned under Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (for short AIBP), more particularly, those that were implemented during the year 2012-2013, 2014- 2014 and 2014-2015, primarily with a prayer to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an impartial investigation and to submit enquiry report before this Court and thereafter, pass further orders based on such report.

(3.) In order to substantiate the plea of malfeasance on the part of the public servants serving under the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council ( for short KAAC) Administration connected with the implementation of the aforementioned AIBP schemes, the petitioner has pleaded certain facts and particulars in the writ petition. It has also been stated that the petitioner had personally inspected a few sites and found that there were over-lapping with previous irrigation scheme in many sites. The particulars of sites such as (1) Borjan Composite (overlapping scheme); (2) Langparpan (overlapping scheme); (3) Dosbai (overlapping scheme); (4) Dongmepi Bey Gaon (new scheme); (5) Langphanki (new scheme); (6) Wallingdisha (new Scheme) and (7) Youangdisa (overlapping scheme) have been furnished in the writ petition. The basic allegations of the writ petitioner, reduced to their essence, are that new projects of Irrigation Schemes were shown to have been set up in sites which already had previously existing irrigation projects, thereby, causing overlapping projects leading to defrauding of the Exchequer; the projects were awarded to contractors in violation of the guidelines laid down for issuing public tenders and some of the projects have been allotted to the relatives of the then Chief Executive Member (CEM) of KAAC and his close associates; there is stark deviation between the Detail Project Report (DPR) and actual implementation of the projects; funds have been diverted illegally without actually implementing the projects.