- (1.) THE present writ applications have been preferred by the petitioners in each of these writ applications, inter alia, for the following reliefs: - (i) For quashing the order contained in Memo. No. 74 A, dated 20.12.2003 (Annexure -4) and similar other memos, issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioners have been individually directed to deposit the amounts mentioned in the impugned orders merely on the basis of an order dated 09.06.2002, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, (Respondent No. 6), alleging the wrong payment of the amounts in question relating to the work of tube well repairs in the various Blocks. (ii) For directing the Respondent No. 2 to either conduct an enquiry himself or by any competent person to examine and enquire into the entire subject matter considering the facts and circumstances under which the entire works regarding the repairs/replacements of tube wells were done at the instance of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. (iii) Further relief has been prayed to restrain the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from taking any coercive action against the petitioners.
(2.) FROM the facts stated, it appears that the petitioners, in each of these writ applications, were posted as Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. during the period of 1999 -2001 at various Blocks. At a meeting at the District level Development Committee, held on 08.05.1999, presided over by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, wherein, all the Block Development Officers of the districts had participated, a decision was taken to repair the tube wells and for drilling new tube wells in the several Blocks. Accordingly, the B.D.Os. were directed to execute the work through J.R.Y. Panchayat funds. The Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. were given the responsibility to identify all such tube wells, which were needed repairs in the respective blocks, to be carried out under the Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojna. A General instruction was issued by the Respondent No. 4 by way of guidance that the expenditure for ordinary repairs for each tube wells could be made to the extent of Rs.700 - 800/ - It further appears that pursuant to the decision taken by the District Level Development Committee, the Respondent No. 5, proceeded to implement the directions and for which he had invited bids for selecting the working Agencies/suppliers for executing the work of repairs. The work was finally awarded to one M/s Hridaya Constructions, Chaibasa and the work order was issued on 09.08.2000 to all the concerned Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. Accordingly, the work was executed by the Agency appointed by the Respondent No. 5 in presence of the petitioners and completed during the period 2000 -01. After more than three years, the impugned order dated 20.12.2003, was issued against the petitioners directing them to deposit the amounts specified in the individual orders and a further direction was issued to institute First Information Reports against the Panchayat Sevaks. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the petitioners have raised, inter alia, the following grounds: - (i) The impugned order has been passed without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners and without affording any prior opportunity to explain as to why the order for deposit of money should not be passed against them. (ii) The petitioners were in no manner responsible either for the completion of the repair work or even for the engagement of the contractor for executing the repair work and neither were they responsible even for supervising the work executed by the contractor. The only duty assigned to the petitioners was to identify the damaged tube wells for repairs which they have done bona fidely. In fact, no amount of money was ever entrusted to any of these petitioners for execution of the assigned work.
(3.) MR . Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the outset that identical issues was raised earlier before this Court in a batch of writ applications, vide W.P. (S) No. 2241 of 2004 and other writ applications, which was decided by a Bench of this Court vide order passed on 18.03.2009. This Court held in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case that the entire action on the part of the Respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and there is total non -application of mind and accordingly, the orders impugned in the aforesaid writ applications were quashed. Learned counsel submits that the same are the factual features in the present writ applications and the petitioners also deserve the same benefit of relief as granted to the writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications.;