FAUZA RAM Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) An affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, wherein it is stated that there are two groups in the locality and in view of such groupism, it was found difficult by the Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer and others to form the KVS. According to the petitioner in the meeting only around 100 farmers participated, whereas according to the Parivar Register, there are around 700 farmers and in case prior notice had been issued a Management Committee could have been found. Therefore, it is prayed that direction be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to form the Committee. It is submitted that in any case the committee, headed by the 5th respondent is incompetent since the very formation of the committee was even prior to sanction of the project.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General (There is no appearance for the 5th respondent despite service of notice). Having heard the arguments and on going through the records, we are of the view that the 5th respondent committee cannot, in any way, be permitted to carry out the work. It is not one formed in accordance with the guidelines. As to whether people committee/KVS can be entrusted with work, in case there is time available for execution of the work, the 3rd respondent, Deputy Commissioner, may make an attempt within two months from today. If that attempt also fails, the work, shall be carried out by the departmental agency, as stated in the affidavit. It is also made clear that in case there is no such time available for execution of the work, it will be open to respondents No. 1 to 4 to carry out work immediately through departmental agencies. Needless to say that in that event the departmental agency will cary out the work strictly as per specifications. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.