Nikka Ram vs State of H.P

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—The petitioner applied, for, the issuance of BPL Certificate in his favour, claiming to be eligible, under the apposite guidelines, for the grant of BPL Certificate. Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat , Luharwin, District Bilaspur, in, its meeting convened on 6.4.2008, ordered for the deletion of name of the petitioner, from the list of BPL families, and, for inclusion of the name of respondent No. 6, as the latter alleged that the former was not eligible for its issuance in his favour. The said denial, to, the petitioner, of a BPL certificate, by the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat , Luharwin, District Bilaspur, led the petitioner, to, assail the denial, before the respondent No. 3, who, after allowing the objections, preferred by the petitioner, before him, directed the inclusion of the name of petitioner, in, the list of BPL families. The respondent No. 6, being aggrieved by the orders, rendered by the respondent No. 3, for the inclusion of the petitioner, in, the list of BPL families, preferred an appeal, before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. However, the said appeal was withdrawn, as, during the pendency of the appeal, a BPL certificate was issued, in, favour of the appellant. In consequence, even though, the orders rendered by the respondent No. 3, directing the inclusion of the name of petitioner, in, the list of BPL families, hence, remained intact. However, given the fact of issuance of a BPL certificate, in, favour of respondent No. 6. on 31.12.2010, in, the meeting convened by the Gram Sabha on 3.4.2011, hence, given its issuance prior, to, the convening of meeting of the Gram Sabha, obviously, then, since the issuance of BPL certificate, preceded the convening of the meeting of Gram Sabha, it does not acquire any legal force or tenacity. In consequence, the withdrawal of appeal by the appellant/respondent No. 6 as preferred by him before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, on the score of his grievance, having come to be mitigated, does not give any leverage to him, to, on its count contend that he has been issued a legally efficacious BPL certificate.

A perusal of Annexures P-6 and P-7 reveals, that, the Deputy Commissioner had directed the BDO Ghumarwin, to, proceed, to, renew the BPL certificate, in, favour of respondent No. 6, as, the effect if any, of withdrawal of appeal, at, the instance of respondent No. 6, before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilapur, was limited for the year 2008-2009, that, hence, a BPL certificate be renewed in favour of respondent No. 6.

The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing a detailed reply. Even though, the factum of BPL certificate having been issued in favour of the petitioner, is, reflected by Annexure P-1, as, also by the factum of the petitioner''s suit for declaration against the respondents, for, according of concomitant benefits in his favour, on, his being issued a BPL certificate, having come to be dismissed as withdrawn, in, sequel to the petitioner having made a statement before the learned Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, that, the respondents, who, were the defendants, in, the appeal, having included his name, in, the list of BPL family. Nonetheless when the petitioner, is, aggrieved by the directions rendered by respondent No. 2 and 3, for issuance of BPL certificate, in, favour of respondent No. 6, who though, is, purportedly ineligible for its grant, besides when even though a BPL certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner, yet given the denial of concomitant benefits by the respondents which hence, ensue or accrue to him, is, the grievance, ventilated before this Court.

To the considered mind of this Court, it is rather significant and crucial, to, also delve into and hence render an adjudication, upon the factum of eligibility of the petitioner, or, of the respondent No. 6, for its grant in their favour and their eligibility to hold it for attaining its benefits, if granted. The petitioner avers that the respondent No. 6 was ineligible for the grant of BPL certificate, as, he was in the receipt of salary to the tune of Rs. 3350/- per month, for the year 2009-2010, and, Rs. 3500/- for the years 2010-2011 per month, while serving in Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharmshala , as, divulged, in, Annexure P-9. However, respondent No. 6, in, response, to, the said fact, while relying upon Annexure R VI/7, has contended, that, he had resigned from his employment under the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharmshala , hence, now, is, eligible for the grant of BPL certificate in his favour. On the other hand, the respondent No. 6, contends, in, the face of, Annexure R-VI/3, portraying and conveying the fact of son of the petitioner being employed, as, Lab Attendant, in, the Government Senior Secondary school, Berthin, since September, 2005, as, also as divulged by Annexure R-VI/2, of his owning one Pucca house, therefore, in the face of Annexure R-VI/5 at page 71, he, is, encompassed, in, the list of ineligible families or, in, the list of families, who are ineligible for the grant of BPL certificate, or being included in the list of BPL families. Even though, respondents No. 1 to 5 vindicate their acts, in, the issuance of a BPL certificate, in, favour of respondent No. 6. However given the admitted fact of his employment under the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharmshala , for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, hence during those years, when, he was drawing salary of Rs. 3350/- and Rs. 3500/- per month, respectively, as such, he was ineligible for grant of BPL certificate, in, those years. However even if, subsequently he has resigned, and, if now he falls within the eligibility criteria, for, the issuance of a BPL certificate, in, his favour, it is open to the respondents, to, consider his case, for, the issuance of a BPL certificate, in, accordance with law. Now given the fact, as, divulged by Annexure R-VI/3 conveying the factum of son of the petitioner serving, in, Government Sr. Secondary School, Berthin, as, Lab Attendant, since 2005, as, also, as, divulged by Annexure R-6, of his owning a pucca house, he, may be, hence, rendered, ineligible for the grant of a BPL certificate, with the consequent effect of Annexure P-1, getting eroded, in, as much, as, respondent No. 3 having not paid any reverence to the aforesaid material. Without commenting upon the fact of non application of mind on the part of respondent No. 3, in, ordering the issuance of Annexure P-1, as, may be at that stage, the material, as, divulged before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, devolving upon, the fact of ineligibility of the petitioner, for, getting issued or obtaining a BPL certificate, or, to hold it, was not before it, hence, this Court is constrained, to, hold that the respondents No. 1 to 5, before proceeding, to, issue a fresh BPL certificate or proceeding, to, include, on, review, the petitioner''s name in the list of BPL families, shall proceed to do so, only while paying reverence to Annexure R-VI/5. On consideration thereof authorities concerned, shall apply their mind to it, vis-�-vis the eligibility of the petitioner, to, obtain or hold a BPL certificate, in, accordance with law.

The upshot of the above discussion, is, that the above discussion, do not at all, constrain this court to at this stage, quash the impugned Annexures, nor, also at this stage, it is permissible for this Court, to, render directions to the respondents No. 1 to 5, to, afford to him, all the concomitant benefits, ensuing from his holding a BPL certificate whose renewal on holding is to be in view of the discussion aforesaid be gone into afresh by the respondents No. 1 to 5.

In view of this, writ petition is disposed of, as, also pending applications, if any.