M. Krishnasamy vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The dispute pertains to the Drought Relief Fund of Rs. 25.27 crores sanctioned by the State Government to six taluks in Erode District. The present Public Interest Litigation seeks to raise the issue of a large amount of this relief of Rs. 18.19 crores being made available only to the native taluk of the fifth respondent-Minister.

A controversy arose on the last date of hearing, about the representations made to different entities i.e., the Collector, the Hon''ble Chief Minister and the Hon''ble Governor. Learned Advocate General has pleaded that there were differently framed representations made to three entities, which were not identical, and in the representation made to the Hon''ble Governor, there were, in fact, accolades paid to the Minister for the work he had done. It is in these circumstances, that we had called upon the petitioner to file an affidavit which has since been filed.

We have perused the affidavit. The petitioner seeks to disown the representation to the Hon''ble Governor. However, the endeavour of the petitioner to make out a case that the representation made to the Office of the Chief Minister, appears to have been interpolated and thereafter, a copy sent to the Office of the Governor is not established according to us. The said story is built upon an issue of addition of certain sentences in the representation as well as the last page having a different font. We, however, find that the font is different even in the representation to the Chief Minister dated 8.6.2013, on the last page, which is undisputedly handed over by the petitioner. To us, it appears that since these representations are not only by the petitioner, but even by the villagers, some discrepancy may have arisen.

Learned Advocate General submits on the basis of the affidavit filed, that the matter has been looked into and recoveries made from the persons, who ought not to have been the beneficiaries. Thus, the fact that certain persons not entitled to the benefit have, in fact, been benefited is not disputed. It is, however, stated that Perundurai Taluk was heavily affected by drought and therefore, required heavy financial assistance compared to other drought affected areas in Erode District and that the allocation of Rs. 18 crores to the said taluk was made after careful consideration of all relevant records.

We put to the learned Advocate General that in view of the discrepancies detected, the issue of disbursement of all amounts must be looked into as for each non-entitled beneficiary, who had the benefit, there is some other person, who may be entitled to the benefit and is deprived of the same. Thus, the question is not only of detecting the disentitled beneficiaries, but also ensuring that the funds, which ought not to have been disbursed to them/recovered, are disbursed to entitled persons.

We call upon the State Government to carry out the aforesaid exercise within a maximum period of two months from today and ensure that all entitled beneficiaries get the benefit of the Scheme of the Government to aid the affected farmers.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.