Sachithan P.C. vs The Secretary and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P4 and P5 orders passed by the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, wherein his complaint has been closed, according to the petitioner, without conducting a detailed enquiry.

The complaint filed by the petitioner relates to the granting of financial assistance for house construction under the Peoples'' Plan Programme among the applicants for the year 2007-08. Initially, the Grama Sabha was convened on 29.11.2007, wherein a decision was taken to constitute a Committee for enquiring into the allegations in preparing the list of beneficiaries. Again another meeting of the Grama Sabha was convened on 21.1.2008. According to the petitioner no discussion on the point was allowed in the meeting and the list was passed abruptly. This was objected to by the petitioner and several other persons. Alleging various irregularities, the petitioner filed a complaint as per Exhibit P3.

By Exhibit P4, the learned Ombudsman directed the petitioner to produce details of applicants, etc. By Exhibit P5, an order was passed after hearing both sides. The petitioner had pointed out two names, namely, Smt. Subna Ali and Khadeeja, whose names have been wrongly left out. With regard to Khadeeja, it was pointed out by the Secretary that she has been granted the benefit under the Indira Avas Yojana. A direction was issued to the Secretary to include the name of Subna Ali after assessing her marks as 53.

Mainly it is pointed out that the learned Ombudsman refused to investigate the complaint in detail and the allegations of corruption and maladministration ought to have been enquired into.

The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the petitioner has no locus standi as he was neither an applicant nor a beneficiary under the Scheme. It is explained that the beneficiaries were selected through a three stage process. Firstly, through the conventional mechanism of calling for the applications and assigning marks in accordance with the answers given in the application form. Secondly, by re- verification of the application and marks awarded through the NHG net work under the Community Development Scheme of Kudumbrasree and finally through the discussion and approval of the list of beneficiaries in the Grama Sabha and Ward Sabha. Accordingly, applications were called for by the Panchayat. After completion of the first two stages, the list was placed before the Grama Sabha. There were certain allegations with respect to Ward No. 8 regarding the inclusion of certain ineligible persons. Even though a suggestion came to enquire into the matter through the Samithi, since that is not the procedure prescribed, again another Grama Sabha was convened. The matter was put for discussion and after almost for more than an hour of discussion, the issue was put for voting and on the basis of the majority decision, the list was approved. It is pointed out that the allegations raised by the petitioner are not correct.

Evidently, the scheme was for the year 2007-08 and as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent- Panchayat, the Scheme is not operative thereafter. Therefore, any addition to the list cannot be thought of at this distance of time. That is the reason why the learned Ombudsman was of the view that from among the two persons whose names are given in Exhibit P5 one of them was granted benefit under the Indira Avas Yojana and the remaining person could be granted the benefit. Even though it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that detailed enquiry should have been conducted, the limited question is whether the proceedings issued as per Exhibit P5 can be faulted. In Exhibit P4, the learned Ombudsman was of the view that at that point of time the only question was whether any eligible applicant has been left out. The said order is dated 19.5.2008. It is evident that the Scheme did not continue thereafter, namely, during the succeeding financial years. The term of the Committee is over already. In that view of the matter also, no beneficiaries can be added to the list or be given any benefit at this distance of time. Therefore, I find nothing wrong with the orders passed by the learned Ombudsman and the Writ Petition is dismissed.