Essakimuthu vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—Writ Petition No. 2108 of 2005, by way of public interest, was preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the

sixth respondent to investigate into the violation of the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of People''s Union for Civil

Liberties v. Union of India vide its order dated 20th April, 2004 and to prosecute the officers responsible for the misappropriation of the rice and

money disbursed for the Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojna in Tuticorin District. According to the petitioner, the Central Government framed

various schemes for poverty eradication, rural development, prevention of starvation deaths, for effective public distribution of foodgrains etc., with

the objective to provide food to the aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women, destitute men who are in danger of starvation, pregnant and lactating

women and destitute children especially in cases where they or members of their family do not have sufficient funds to provide food for them.

Towards the said objective, the Union of India framed several schemes viz., Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), Employment Assurance Scheme,

later renamed as Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (S.G.R.Y.), Midday Meal Scheme, Integrated Child Development Scheme, National

Maternity Benefit Scheme, National Old Age Pension, Annapoorna Scheme and National Family Benefit Scheme. The Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar

Yojana Scheme was framed to provide work in the drought affected areas for the agricultural wage earners, non-agricultural wage earners and

marginal farmers with priority to people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and within this sector particularly to women. The

scheme provides for creation of useful community assets that have the potential for generating sustained and gainful employment such as water and

soil conservation, afforestation and agro-horiculture, salvipasture, minor irrigation and link roads. All the works to be sponsored under the scheme

are selected by the Block Development Officer. The District Collector approves the work, which is sponsored under the S.G.R.Y., and issues the

work orders. The said scheme is being implemented in Tuticorin district of Tamil Nadu. There are 10 unions, 8 taluks and 408 panchayats in the

Tuticorin district. The Central Government has issued detailed guidelines in respect of implementation of the scheme. Following the said guidelines,

the Block Development Officer, Kovilpatti passed orders by letter dated 14th May, 2004 fixing terms and conditions for implementation of the

scheme. The said order also lists out the work to be executed under the scheme. As per the guidelines, no machine power should be used for

carrying out the work sponsored under S.G.R.Y. The other significant terms and conditions, as shown in the letter dated 14th May, 2004, are as

follows:

(a) Daily wage is fixed as Rs. 54/-. A portion of the wage is to be paid as 7 kgs of rice calculated at Rs. 5.65 per kg. Thus the wage value of 7 kgs

of rice is determined as Rs. 39.55. The balance of Rs. 14.45 is paid in cash.

(b) Wage rice coupon to be given on a specified day for once in a week in the presence o an appropriate officer.

(c) Weekly work progress report should be submitted to the Planning officer through e-mail on every Thursday.

(d) Photographs of works to be taken on three stages namely, before commencement, during progress and after completion and a copy to be

annexed along with concerned list. Another copy of all the photographs should be compiled and forwarded to Planning Officer.

(e) At every work site information board should be installed giving details of the name of the work, estimate, ground work done, daily wage

details.

(f) Instructions and advice to be obtained from District Collector in case of any difficulty.

The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the foodgrains released by the Central Government nor the money disbursed towards wages have

reached the people to whom it was meant for. All the officers who are responsible for implementation of the scheme have abused their position and

exploited the rice and money allocated for the S.G.R.Y. Scheme. A complaint was lodged by one P.M.Selvan before the second respondent. The

said respondent by his reply dated 7th June, 2004 stated that on enquiry it was found that the said complaint was made out of political vendetta

and that no machinery was used for the S.G.R.Y. Scheme. As the benefit of the scheme has not gone to the needy persons, it appears that the

petitioner also represented on 18th June, 2004 to the District Collector, Tuticorin confirming the use of machinery and requested for a detailed

enquiry. It is alleged that the rice worth about Rs. 3 Crores meant for distribution under S.G.R.Y. Scheme in Tuticorin District have been taken

away from the Civil Supplies Corporation to be sold to private parties at Delhi. The rice has been smuggled from the Civil Supplies Corporation

and has been stored in a warehouse near Tuticorin railway yard. A criminal case has already been registered by the Inspector of Police, Civil

Supplies CID in Crime No. 176 of 2004 in relation to smuggling of rice allocated under the public distribution system. The Home Department also

ordered for enquiry into the smuggling of rice worth about Rs. 3 Crores meant to be distributed under S.G.R.Y. Scheme and requested that the

investigation should be handed over to C.B.I.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent, the District Collector, Tuticorin. In the said counter affidavit, while certain allegations

have been denied, but no specific reply has been given with regard to many of the allegations made and highlighted by the petitioner. It is stated

that the District Collector received anonymous telephone calls stating that the rice allotted for S.G.R.Y. Scheme have been smuggled by private

agencies through a goods train on 15th August, 2004. On receiving the telephone call, immediately the District Collector called the District Supply

Officer to register a case against the smugglers in exercise of the powers u/s 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of

Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. On receiving of complaint from the District Supply Officer, Tuticorin, a case was registered by the

Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID in Crime No. 176 of 2004 under Sections 4(1), 19(1) of TNETA (RDCS) Order 1984, 2(i), 6(4) of

TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i) & (ii) of the EC Act and Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC. In the said criminal case, the Inspector of

Police, Civil Supplies CID, Tirunelveli was the investigating officer and five persons were arrested, who appears to have been enlarged on bail by

the order of the Court. The Regional Office of TNCSC collected seven samples from the seized rice of 2300 tonnes and the rice collected were

analysed in the regional laboratory of TNCSC and in the report, they have certified that the seized rice were PDS variety and was forwarded to

the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Tirunelveli by letter dated 25th August, 2004.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. It appears that in a similar matter before the

Supreme Court in People''s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001, wherein an interim order

was passed on 20th April, 2004, the Court directed for doubling the foodgrains as also cash in terms of the order dated 2nd May, 2003 and

allowed access to all public documents including muster rolls to such persons who seek access and the cost of supply shall not be more than the

cost of providing copies of the documents. The State Governments have been directed to utilise the entire allocation, as aforesaid, so that the

allotted funds and foodgrains neither lapse nor result in reduction in subsequent years. In spite of such directions given by the Supreme Court, it

appears from the FIR lodged and the statements made in the counter affidavit that the rice, which was meant for the poor, particularly the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and were to be given to them pursuant to the scheme in question, has been swindled. We do not want to

make any further observation with regard to the same, as the matter is pending investigation and particularly in Crime No. 176 of 2004, in which

21 persons have been cited as accused. We hope and trust that the criminal case will be concluded at an early date. The respondents are directed

to pursue the aforesaid matter vigorously to ensure early justice.

Further, as it appears that there is a dereliction of duty on the part of some officers and there may be cases in which the officers may be hand in

glove with one or other person, we direct the respondent-District Collector, Tuticorin to get the matter enquired into and, if necessary, to initiate

departmental proceedings against the concerned officers and staff who may be involved in the matter. The Secretary to Government of Tamil

Nadu, Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai is also directed to supervise the matter and ensure that the

departmental proceedings, if so required, are initiated and concluded at an early date, if not yet initiated.

So far as the other two Writ Petition Nos. 24026 & 25333 of 2004 are concerned, in both the cases, prayer has been made for issuance of

writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner interfering with the business activities of the petitioners. It appears that these are

the companies against which it is alleged that they purchased the PDS rice which were meant for distribution under the S.G.R.Y. Scheme. In this

regard, as already a criminal case has been instituted and the matter is under investigation, we are not inclined to issue the direction as sought for.

We may only observe that in the interest of justice and for investigation, if so required, it will be open to the respondents to enquire into the

activities of the petitioners.

All the three writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions, but there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,

W.P.M.P. Nos. 2355 of 2005, 29156, 31947 to 31949 & 30795 of 2004 are closed.