Shahajamal Sk. And 2 Ors vs State Of Assam And Ors

AM Bujor Barua, J

Heard Mr. IA Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent

Nos.1 to 5.

The petitioners being residents of village Nayer Alga Part IV and Part V in the Dhubri districthad preferred this public interest litigation on the

allegation that the construction of AGRIL, BUNDH CH.00.00 M to 1000 M PROTECTION THE PADDY FIELD 50 HCT. AGRIL LAND AT

NAYER ALGA, PT-IV had not been completed. It is stated that the detailed project report of the aforesaid work was prepared by the Government

of Assam through the BDO-cum-Programme Officer of Nayer Alga Anchalik Panchayat at an estimated cost of Rs.5,00,000/-, under the

MGNREGA Scheme. It is the allegation that the respondent No.6 being the Secretary of Boyzer Alga Gaon Panchayat had executed the work in a

haphazard manner and that the entire Rs.5,00,000/- was withdrawn without completing the work.

According to the petitioners, as the local people were of the view that the work was not doneas per the detailed project report a complaint dated

30.10.2017 was submitted by the petitioner No.1 and two other persons.

On the aforesaid premises, the PIL had been preferred. The respondents through theaccredited Engineer in the Office of the Block Development

Officer, Nayer Alga Development Block had filed an affidavit-in-opposition dated 09.05.2018, wherein in paragraph 3, a categorical statement has

been made that the work of construction of AGRIL, BUNDH CH.00.00 M to 1000 M PROTECTION THE PADDY FIELD 50 HCT. AGRIL

LAND AT NAYER ALGA, PT-IV had already been completed by the Nayer Alga Anchalik Panchayat strictly as per the plan estimate under the

MGNREGA Scheme. It is stated that the work stood completed on 04.12.2017 and as per the plan estimate a wages bill for an amount of

Rs.4,09,737/- had been submitted. A further stand has been taken that the allegations made in the public interest litigation petition are false, baseless

and fabricated.

The petitioners in response had filed an affidavit in reply dated 28.05.2018, wherein inparagraph 2, it is stated that the statements made in the

affidavit-in-opposition are inconsistent with the prevailing facts and that the respondent authorities have neither submitted any completion certificate

nor had submitted any details about the progress of the work. It is taken note of that in the affidavit-in-reply, no specific averment has been made that

the work, in question, have not been completed and the only statement made is that the completion certificate has not been submitted.

Further in course of the hearing the respondent authorities have submitted some photographsof the work that had been done and the photographs

clearly reveal that a bundh has been constructed and also there exists a road over the bundh.

In view of the above that the petitioners have not made any categorical statement in theaffidavit in reply that the work has not been completed and

that the photographs reveal that the bundh has been constructed and there exists a road over the bundh, 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.