Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25802 OF 2022 PETITIONER:
THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH SRPM P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 539 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV SHRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN, SC, THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESPONDENTS:
1 THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SAFALYAM COMPLEX, TRIDA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SMT.SUNANDA SOPANAM, PAVUMBA NORTH, PAVUMBA P.O., KARUNGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 574.
3 SARATH KUMAR FORMER PANCHAYAT MEMBER, SARIKA BHAVANAM, PAVUMBA NORTH, PAVUMBA P.O., KOLLAM - 690 574.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.25802/2022 : 2 :
N. NAGARESH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No.25802 of 2022 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of August, 2022 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Aggrieved by Ext.P6 Order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, a Grama Panchayat is before this Court. By Ext.P6 Order, the Ombudsman directed the Panchayat to pay the balance amount due to the 2nd respondent who is a beneficiary under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).
2.
The 2nd respondent is a beneficiary of MGNREGS under which she was permitted to construct a well in her property during the year 2018-'19. Out of the estimated amount of ₹1,76,000/- allocated, ₹99,682/- was for wages of skilled labourers, ₹22,886/- was for unskilled labourers and
WP(C) No.25802/2022 : 3 :
₹39,250/- for cost of materials required. The well was constructed but, the entire amount was not released to the 2nd respondent.
3.
The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Ombudsman alleging misappropriation of money payable to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed a Statement before the Ombudsman pointing out that for disbursement of the cost of materials to the 2nd respondent, she has to produce bills from the vendor having GST registration. The 2nd respondent failed to produce satisfactory bills.
4.
The Ombudsman, without appreciating the documents relied on by the petitioner, passed Ext.P6 Order directing the petitioner to pay the material bill to the tune of ₹39,250/-.
5.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent approached the Ombudsman without availing the remedies available under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the Scheme of MGNREGS Ombudsman. The Master Circular issued by the Government
WP(C) No.25802/2022 : 4 :
of India mandates that individual beneficiaries, who purchase materials on private lands, shall procure the same from Vendors having GST registration and on the rates approved by the competent authorities.
6.
The Order of the Ombudsman goes against Exts.P4 and P5 Circulars. There is no instance of maladministration on the part of the petitioner in not paying the amount to the 2nd respondent. There is no materials to show that the 2nd respondent has spent ₹39,250/- for purchase of materials. The Ombudsman therefore ought not have passed orders as contained in Ext.P6, urged the counsel for the petitioner.
7.
Heard.
8.
The 2nd respondent approached the Ombudsman, aggrieved by the non-payment of eligible amount, after construction of a Well under the MGNREG Scheme. On completion of the work, the 2nd respondent was paid amounts towards labour cost, skilled and unskilled. But, the payment towards material costs was not made.
WP(C) No.25802/2022 : 5 :
9.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted before the Ombudsman that non-payment was due to non-production of GST bills by the 2nd respondent.
10.
The Ombudsman considered the dispute and found that till date, the 2nd respondent was not required to produce GST bills. The duty to levy GST is on the vendor and the duty to remit the tax is on the vendor/service provider. Even if receiver of service can be levied GST, if there is default, it is unjustifiable to withhold payments on that ground. There is no reason to withhold the amount payable to the complainant.
11.
It may be noted that the payment is under MGNREGS. The project was intended to benefit targeted individual beneficiaries. No one has a case that the 2nd respondent has not constructed the well or that the 2nd respondent has misappropriated or tried to misuse the funds.
Existence of another mechanism of MGNREGS Ombudsman, cannot be a ground to hold that the 1st respondent- Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions has no power to entertain the complaint of the 2nd respondent. The
WP(C) No.25802/2022 : 6 :
reasons given by the Ombudsman for granting relief to the complainant cannot be said to be unreal or perverse.
In the circumstances of the case, this Court do not find any reason to set aside Ext.P6 Order of the Ombudsman.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/17.08.2022
WP(C) No.25802/2022 : 7 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25802/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 4/8/2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 8/9/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PANCHAYAT BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN DATED 25/4/2022.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ANNUAL MASTER CIRCULAR 2018-2019 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE MISSION DIRECTOR, MGNREGS DATED 12/7/2022 VIDE NO.2168/B1/REGS.
Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/6/2022 IN COMPLAINT NO.58/2021 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF REVISED GUIDELINES FOR APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF OMBUDSMAN FOR MGNREGS FORWARDED BY LETTER DATED 28/8/2017.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL