- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is public spirited person. He had met with 37 workers who had been working under the Saraswati Vahini Scheme as floated by the State Government. Those 37 ladies had been elected as Sanyozika Mata. They had not been paid honorarium. He further asserts that apart from the aforesaid 37 individuals, in the entire State, no honorarium has been paid to Sanyozika Matas under the Scheme as floated by the State Government. When being suggested by this Court that individual cases were specifically required to be put forward before this Court, learned Counsel was of the opinion that these individuals are illiterate, down -trodden and persons of meagre means. Therefore, they cannot individually approach this Court. It was also suggested to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State has the State Legal Services Authority to provide legal aid to those who are desirous of getting legal aid including court proceedings and lawyer. Learned Counsel submitted that it is not possible for the clients to come forward to seek legal aid also. In view of the aforesaid, learned Counsel submitted that this petition should be entertained. We have been taken through the scheme and in Clause 4(ii), there is a specification that honorarium will be paid to two mothers who will be selected by the Samithi. It does not contain the expression Sanyozika Mata. Thus, the basic requirement for payment of honorarium to a Sanyozika Mata is not contained in the Scheme. In this petition, the facts required to be ascertained is whether 37 individuals named in this petition and all others about whom learned Counsel is spousing fall within this category. For this purpose, details are necessary. Without the necessary details, it is not possible to legally adjudicate the same on the basis of the information supplied because, when asked, learned Counsel submitted that he has not visited the entire State and no contact could be made with all the individuals whose cause he is spousing.
(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that on the basis of the record available to this Court and the information available with the petitioner's counsel, no fruitful adjudication is possible in this petition. In that view of the matter, we do not think that any appropriate adjudication is possible. The individuals, who have been deprived of their payment, may approach this Court, but the case of the present nature is not liable to be entertained. Hence, this PIL is dismissed.;