Decided on March 04,2020

Pressmens Multipurpose Development Organization Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to release the amount of grant with interest in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner which is a trust and working as a Non Government Organization claims the release of the grant under the Scheme floated by the Government of India and it is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has performed its part as per the scheme, the amount due to the petitioner is not being released. As a result, the petitioner is facing loss for the expenditure incurred by the petitioner in furtherance with the object of the scheme.
(2.) It is submitted that periodically the Central Government had released the grant and the petitioner was also paid part from such grant for particular period and therefore, the work carried out by the petitioner was as per the scheme. It is submitted that for the period 2013 to 2014 the petitioner was paid and for the year 2015 to 2016 and 2016 onwards, though Central Government had released its share of the grant as per the scheme and an order was passed on 22.11.2017 to release the grant in favour of the petitioner, the same is not being paid. The order of 2017 was for releasing the grant in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6,00,900/-. It is submitted that while issuing the release order, the respondent-Central Government had taken into consideration all the aspects including the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and other documents regarding the work of the petitioner as per the scheme and incurring of expenditure. It is submitted that for the period between 2016 to 2017, total amount of expenditure comes to Rs.18,11,700/-.
(3.) It is submitted that in fact the respondent No.3 had passed the release order directing the respondent No.4 to release the amount of Rs.6,00900/- on 22.11.2017, however, the respondent No.4 has not complied with such order of his superior and has not released the grant. It is submitted that the reason behind in action of respondent No.4 is an extraneous demand made by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 is insisting of illegal documentary evidence for the sanctioned amount and for which he had asked the petitioner to make payment in particular account of a person with whom the petitioner has no connection and as the petitioner has not complied with such illegal demands, the grant is not released in favour of the petitioner. 3.1 It is submitted that the respondent No.4 is only a disbursing authority. Once the decision is taken for release of grant, it is not open for the respondent No.4 to withhold the release. It is submitted that under the scheme, the release order was passed for six NGOs including the name of the petitioner however, release has not made in favour of the petitioner only, whereas in case of others, the release is made. It is submitted that on the basis of affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2020 to content that the Extension Officer who was also auditor had carried out the inspection and his report indicates that the work is done by the petitioner, but wrong ground is created by the authorities that the petitioner had no sanction for a particular period for which the petitioner is claiming the release of funds. It is submitted that if such was the case then there was no question of issuing an order of carrying out audit by respondent No.3, who has appointed the Extension Officer as auditor in the year 2017. It is also submitted that on the basis of affidavit in rejoinder filed on 06.02.2020 it is submitted that the respondent No.4 is now facing inquiry on the basis of allegations made by the petitioner. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.