AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant bunch of writ petitions involves common question of facts and law and is thus being decided together by this single order.
The petitioners herein all are contractors who claim to have been awarded contracts for supply of material under the ‘Apna Kaam Apna Khet
Scheme’ being run by the Panchayati Raj Department in the Gram Panchayat Lalana Utrada, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh in the year
2013-14. The petitioners claim to have supplied the different construction materials at the construction sites in furtherance of the order placed by the
Gram Panchayat and thereafter, the constructions in question were executed. However, the villagers on whose lands, the constructions were raised,
filed separate complaints before the Lokpal, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Scheme, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ombudsman’) alleging large scale irregularities and illegalities in payment made towards material used in
construction carried out by the Panchayat under the “Apna Khet Apna Kaam Yojanaâ€. It was alleged that the villagers themselves procured the
material whereas the payment was fraudulently made to the petitioners. The Ombudsman conducted simultaneous proceedings of all the complaints
and the complainant of each case was heard and his statement was recorded on 04.12.2014. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the
respective petitioners on 05.12.2014 requiring them to furnish an explanation on or before 12.12.2014. The petitioners claim that they never received
these show cause notices and the Ombudsman, acting in hot haste, issued the initial award dated 22.12.2014 (placed as Annexure-7 in each of the writ
petitions) holding that the petitioners had raised fictitious bills for claiming reimbursement of goods/material which they never supplied and thus,
recovery be made from the concerned Sarpanch, Gram Sevak, Jr. Technical Assistant and blacklisted the petitioner firms. After receiving copy of the
initial award, each of the petitioners filed review petitions which were dismissed by the modified award dated 20.03.2015 (placed as Annexure-9 in
each of the writ petitions) and the direction to blacklist the petitioners herein was re-affirmed. The petitioners herein have assailed both the awards
(Annexure-7 & Annexure-9) in this bunch of writ petitions.
Shri R.K. Prajapat, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the impugned awards are unjust, arbitrary and illegal. He
contended that the petitioners were not provided appropriate opportunity to show cause or of hearing before issuance of the initial award (Annexure-
7) dated 22.12.2014. He further contended that the pertinent statement/defence raised by the petitioners in the review petitions was not considered
objectively by the Ombudsman and thus, the final award (Annexure-9) dated 20.03.2015 too is arbitrary perverse and bad in the eye of law and should
be quashed.
Per contra, Shri Manish Patel, learned AGC submits that the Ombudsman received the complaints in question which contained serious allegations of
gross irregularities in the scheme and misappropriation of public funds. After duly verifying the allegations made therein, show-cause notices were
issued to the petitioners. He drew the Court’s attention to the review applications filed by the petitioners and urged that it has nowhere been
pleaded therein that the petitioners did not receive the notices dated 05.12.2014 issued by the Ombudsman. He contended that inspite of this fact, the
Ombudsman, reheard and reappreciated the entire sequence of events while considering the review applications and passed detailed orders
meticulously dealing with each and every objection raised by the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that the challenge given to the Lokpal’s
award on merits is not sustainable because it would require delving into disputed questions of facts. He further submits that the Ombudsman, directed
recovery of the defalcated amounts from the Sarpanch, the Jr. Technical Assistant and the Gram Sevak who have not challenged the same and thus,
the award has became final to this extent. In the backdrop of these facts, Shri Patel craved dismissal of these writ petitions.
Learned counsel Shri Matoria supported and adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Manish Patel.
I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.
The thrust of contentions advanced by Shri Prajapat, learned counsel representing the petitioners for assailing the impugned awards was that the
petitioners were not provided appropriate opportunity of hearing and of defending themselves by the Ombudsman in the first round of proceedings.
Suffice it to say that the said aspersion is totally fictional and has no foundation whatsoever. The Ombudsman, issued the notices on 05.12.2014 and
intimated each of the petitioners to file their reply/explanation by 12.12.2014. Though the petitioners have claimed that they did not receive these
notices but ex-facie, the said assertion is manifestly unfounded for the simple reason that nowhere in the pleadings of the review applications, did the
petitioners mention that they did not receive the notices issued to them by the Ombudsman. Inspite thereof, the Ombudsman while hearing the review
applications considered in detail, the defences raised by the petitioners and passed a fresh final award and reaffirming the earlier decision of
blacklisting the petitioners and to effect recovery of the defalcated moneys from the Sarpanch, Jr. Technical Assistant and the Gram Sevak. It may be
stated here that even in the review applications, the explanation offered by each of the petitioners regarding them not being responsible for the alleged
delinquency/ misappropriation is flimsy and hypothetical. No concrete proof was provided by the petitioners to establish that they actually supplied the
material/ goods in question on being ordered by the Panchayat at the construction sites. Thus, the finding arrived by the Ombudsman in the impugned
awards that the petitioners in conspiracy with the Sarpanch, etc., generated and encashed fictitious bills without supplying the material in question is
based on a just and proper appreciation of facts. This Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, would be loath to enter into such
disputed questions of facts so as to interfere in the well reasoned awards passed by the quasi-judicial authority.
As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in these writ petitions which are dismissed as being devoid of merit. Stay applications are also
dismissed.
No order as to cost.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.