Md. Abdul Majeed And ORS. v. Union Of India And ORS.

19.12.2022 Sl. No.23(DL) srm W.P.A. No. 27519 of 2022 Md. Abdul Majeed & Ors.

Versus

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Ramkrishna Bhattacharjee, Mr. Kaushik Chaudhury, Ms. Busra Khatun ....for the Petitioners.

Mr. Rajarshi Basu, Mr. S.T. Mina ...for the State-respondents.

Mr. Rananjay Chatterjee ...for the Union of India.

Affidavit-of-service is taken on record.

The petitioners allege inaction on the part of the Block Development Officer, Goalpokher-I Development Block, Uttar Dinajpur. According to the petitioners, despite an order of this Court dated October 7, 2021 passed in WPA No.14678 of 2021, the authority had failed and neglected to take steps. Allegation is that the order of this Court had not been complied with.

Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits on instruction that a single representation by more than 300 applicants, who were aggrieved by the alleged deletion of their names from the list of beneficiaries under the PMAY-G scheme, could not be considered upon granting all of them an opportunity of

being heard. It is further pointed out that this Court had directed the petitioners in the earlier writ petition to approach the authority by filing fresh representations. Mr. Basu further submits that the AWAAS portal is at the moment inoperative.

Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to each and every aggrieved party to file separate representation with their individual grievance before the Block Development Officer, Goalpokher-I Development Block. If such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law upon hearing the aggrieved person. The only issue to be decided would be whether the name of the concerned person had been left out by mistake, although the person was otherwise eligible. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to all.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the petitioners' individual representation.

The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Parties are to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)