Anindya Sundar Das v. Union Of India & ORS

ss/jks 11.04.2022 WPA 31223 of 2017 Anindya Sundar Das Vs.

The Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman Mr. Rajendra Banerjee Mr. Debapriya Samanta Mr. Subhadip Pramanik ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Nandalal Singhania Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta ... ... for the respondent nos.1,3,5,6,8 & 9 Mr. Anirban Ray, GP Mr. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee ... ... for the State Mr. DebnathGhosh Mr. Sushovit Dutt Majumdar Ms. Mini Agarwal ... ... for the respondent nos.11, 18 & 19 In this petition the allegation made by the petitioner is that in village Khodambari-1 Gram Panchyet of district Purba Medinipur, large scale of defalcation and misappropriation of funds, meant for the purpose of MGNREGA, has been done.

It has been alleged in the petition that the fake job cards in the name of the persons other than beneficiaries have been open and the payments have been made in the fake bank accounts.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as many as 400 bank accounts in the Axis bank having branches in Maharashtra but having no branch in or near the village have been open and the amount have been paid for imaginary work in the fake accounts. The allegations which have been made in the petition need factual enquiry.

Learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that such an enquiry can be conducted by the respondent no.12, District Magistrate and Collector and District Programme Coordinator, Tamluk.

Hence, we dispose of the present petition permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate detailed representation along with all the supporting material before the respondent no.12, District Magistrate and Collector and District Programme Coordinator, Tamluk. On the receipt of the said representation the respondent no.12 will conduct an enquiry in respect of the allegation made in the representation and if in the enquiry the allegations are found to be correct then appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken against the persons who are found responsible for such illegality and irregularity.

Let this exercise be completed by the respondent no.12 within a period of three months from the date or receipt of the representation.

Since affidavits have not been called for, therefore this Court is not expressing any opinion on the allegations made in the petition.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.) (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)