Abdul Kader And 5 Ors. vs State Of Assam And Ors.

AM Bujor Barua, J

None appears for the petitioners. Heard Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

The petitioners are all residents of village Nayer Alga Part IV and Part V under Boyzer AlgaGaon Panchayat in the Dhubri district.

The detailed project report under the MGNREGA 2017-2018 were issued by the Nayer Alga Development Block for five schemes, namely, (i)

construction of road from Mogol Hussain house to Julfikar Ali house at Nayer Alga Pt.IV at an estimated amount of Rs.4,99,914/- (ii) construction of

road from Rohij Uddin house to Ahej Ali house at Nayer Alga Pt.IV at an estimated amount of Rs.4,99,914/(iii) construction of road from Surman Ali

house to Nur Islam house at Boyzer Alga Pt. V at an estimated amount of Rs.4,999,914/- (iv) construction of road from Amjad Ali house to Samad

Ali house at Boyzer Alga Pt. V at an estimated amount of Rs.4,99,914/- (v) construction of road from Gias Uddin house to Sukur Ali house at Boyzer

Alga Pt. V at an estimated amount of Rs.9,99,934/-.

According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 had executed the work in ahaphazard manner without following the detailed estimate

prepared by the accredited Engineer of Nayer Alga Development Block and further funds were released by the respondent authorities without the

project being completed.

The respondent authorities through the Assistant Commissioner of Bilasipara has filed anaffidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that a complaint

petition dated 01.02.2018 was filed by one Shahajamal Sk and other villagers of Nayer Alga Part IV which was received on 02.02.2018. It is noted

that Shahajamal Sk is the petitioner No.2 in the present public interest litigation petition.

The complaint petition was forwarded to the BDO of Nayer Alga Development Block as peroffice letter dated 09.02.2002 for examining the matter

and to ensure that the guidelines are strictly followed while carrying out the works, in question. The concerned Executive Magistrate of Bilasipara was

also required to conduct random check so as to ensure that proper implementation of the scheme was done. The result of the random checks carried

out revealed that the schemes were carried out in the required manner and certain inspection reports are made available on record.

In the affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authorities, thepetitioners merely made an statement that the respondent

authorities are unable to furnish any detail about the five schemes, its progress report and cost of implementation and that the affidavit filed by the

respondent authorities is devoid of any merit and not related to the public interest litigation.

No statement has been made that the progress of work indicated in the inspection reportannexed to the affidavits are incorrect or that the project, in

question, had not been implemented.

In the absence of any categorical statement by the petitioners in their affidavit-in-reply thatthere is no progress in the implementation of the

schemes, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the public interest litigation petition are no longer sustainable.

Accordingly, the public interest litigation petition stands closed.