SHRI MONGLONG, G.B. AND 4 ORS v. STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-11-29. SHRI MONGLONG, G.B. AND 4 ORS v. STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/4 GAHC020007802024 2024:GAU-NL:623 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/295/2024 SHRI MONGLONG, G. B. AND 4 ORS R/O YONGPHANG VILLAGE LONGLENG NAGALAND 2: SHRI. CHONGMEI PHOM YONGPHANG VILLAGE COUNCIL MEMBER R/O YONGPHANG VILLAGE LONGLENG NAGALAND 3: SHRI TANGE YONGPHANG VILLAGE COUNCIL MEMBER R/O YONGPHANG VILLAGE LONGLENG NAGALAND 4: SHRI. THANYEI R/O YONGPHANG VILLAGE LONGLENG NAGALAND 5: SHRI BUNGA PHOM R/O YONGPHANG VILLAGE LONGLENG NAGALAN VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DIRECTOR Page No. # 2/4 DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVT.
OF NAGALAND 4:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LONGLENG NAGALAND 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LONGLENG NAGALAND 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RURAL DEVELOPMENT BLOCK SAKSHI LONGLENG NAGALAND 7:THE SECRETARY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT BOARD YONGPHANG VILLAGE LONGLENG NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MOA JAMIR, M JEMU,MANHEIH KONYAK,R MERE,THEJANUO METHA,T. METSIEO,SHISA JAMIR Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 29-11-2024 Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Ms. S. Chang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners is that as per this information under the scheme of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 20025 (NREGA), a sum of Rs. Rs. 2,87,68,579/-, was allocated for the year 2022 to 2024, for Yongphang village, under Sakshi block, Longleng district. This allocation was for the completed scheme.
However, only a sum of Rs. 67,67,014/- Page No. # 3/4 has been benefited by the public and a total sum of Rs. 2,20,01,565/- has been misappropriated. 3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek and prays for the following directions: -i. To consider and dispose of the complaint dated 21. 10. 2024 submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law within a stipulated time; ii. To set up an independent Inquiry Committee with regard to misappropriation in respect of Yongphang village Longleng, Nagaland under MNREGA scheme for the year v2022-2024 and initiate legal proceedings in terms of law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this regard, the petitioners have submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng (respondent No. 5), on 21. 10. 2024, and requested to look into the matter in order to bring about a peaceful solution for both the parties with a view to avoid any complications.
However, the said representation is still pending disposal before the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has a limited prayer to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng to dispose of the said representation submitted by the petitioners on 21. 10. 2024. The learned counsel for the petitioners also is not pressing for prayer No. ii for setting up of independent Inquiry with regard to the alleged misappropriation etc. at this stage. 6. Ms. S. Chang, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents initially requested for issuance of notice. However, Page No. # 4/4 considering that the petitioner has a limited prayer at this stage only for disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng, and not pressing for other prayer, she has not raised any objection. 7.
In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and considering that the petitioners has limited prayer for direction to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners before the Deputy Commission, and no objection being raised by the respondent, I prefer to dispose of the writ petition at the motion stage itself. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly the Deputy Commissioner, Longleng (respondent No. 5), to dispose of the representation dated 21. 10. 2024 submitted by the petitioners with a speaking order, preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With the above, the writ petition stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.