Orissa

Cuttak

CC/48/2018

Arjuna Charan Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dist Agriculture Officer,Salipur - Opp.Party(s)

B K Rath

09 Nov 2020

ORDER

 IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

   C.C No.48/2018

Arjuna Charan Rout,

S/O:Late Bholanath Rout of Village:Champati,

PO:Padmapur,P.S:Jagatpur,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                               … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

                          

1.         District Agriculture Officer,Salipur,

District: Cuttack.

 

2.         Asst. Agriculture Officer,Salipur,Cuttack.                ...Opp.Parties

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

                                                                      

Date of filing:    03.05.2018

Date of Order:  09.11.2020

 

For the complainant.  :    Sri B.K.Rath,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.1 & 2       :    Sri G.P.Lenka,G.P.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

The complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition  alleging deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is an old man and agriculturist.  He is the owner of the agriculture lands situated in Mouza;Madhyakachha appertaining to plot no.1531,1529,345,344,2365.346,2358,342 and 360/2346 measuring total area Ac.2.787 decimal.  These plots are situated in a compact area.  The cultivation of these lands depends upon the rain water.

The Govt. of Odisha initiated a scheme as Jalanidhi scheme to facilitate the tillers by providing bore well on loan basis on subsidized rate.  The complainant applied to the District Agriculture Officer, Cuttack in the year 1998 for installation of bore well on his land for cultivation over the above lands with required documents.  The District Agriculture Officer on receipt of the application of the complainant had directed to Asst. Agriculture Officer,Salipur for field inquiry of the area and submission of report vide memo no.1169 dt.22.2.1999.  Copy of the memo no.1169 dt.22.2.1999 is enclosed as Annexure-1. 

The O.P No.2 did not make any field enquiry on the letter vide Annexurte-1 in spite of several approaches by complainant.   On repeated request of the complainant the District Agriculture Officer again issued reminder to the O.P No.2 for submission of feasibility report for deep bore well in favour of the complainant under Salipur Block and the same is to be intimated to the Central Bank of India,Pirabazar Branch.  The copy of the letter no.1033 dt.2.3.2009 is Annexure-2.

In spite of the letter under Annexure-2, the O.P No.2 did not make any field enquiry nor submit any report.  So the O.P No.1 again issued a letter reminding O.P No.2 to submit feasibility report for deep bore well in favour of the complainant vide memo no.261 dt.18.1.2010. The complainant was also requested to submit estimate of bore well from the executants.  The copy of the memo no.261 dt.18.1.2010 is filed and marked as Annexure-3.   The complainant submitted the estimate report of authorized executants to the tune of Rs.1,11,379/-to be incurred expenditure for installation of bore well.  The O.P No.2 in spite of several letters and reminders remained adamant to the letter of District Agriculture Officer.  So the complainant was compelled to redress his grievance to Deputy Director of Agriculture,Cuttack.  On the direction of the Deputy Director, the O.P No.2 forwarded the proposal for installation of bore well with required documents such as quotation, copy of patta, map and work order to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,Salipur ADB Branch for sanction of the loan under Jalanidhi scheme with copy to the complainant vide memo no58 dt.24.2.2010 which is annexed as Annexure-4.

The complainant sought for information under RTI Act in respect of sanction of bore well subsidy containing letter no.740 dt.4.2.1999 and verification report in response to the memo no.1169 dt.22.2.1999.  But the O.P No.1 intimated vide its letter no.2024 dt.3.10.15 that the above information’s are not available in its office nor in the office of O.P No.2.  The copy of the letter no.2024 dt.03.10.15 is annexed as Aannexure-5.

The complainant requested the O.P no.1, the Joint Director, Agriculture vide his office memo who after understanding the plight of the complainant by his letter no.2008 dt.17.10.15 intimated to the District Agriculture Officer,Salipur and other authorities that the AAO, the O.P No.2 did not submit the feasibility report but forwarded the application to the branch manager (ADB),Salipur with go ahead letter and estimate for necessary finance.  Subsequently the son of the complainant deposited Rs.9000/- towards farmer’s share of Micro Irrigation System.  The D.A.O vide his letter dt.17.10.2015 requested the Joint Director, Agriculture to divert one bore well project to Cuttack district.  But the Joint Director, Agriculture expressed his inability vide his letter dated 15.2.2016(Annexure-7).

The complainant made a representation submitting his grievances as above on 5.4.16 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Odisha who forwarded the same to department.  The complainant also met the Commissioner,Agriculture in his official chamber who directed the D.A.O,Salipur to issue a go ahead letter.  But he remained silent over the matter.

The Joint Director on receipt of the letter dt.5.4.16 forwarded the same vide Dy. No.2874/C.M-II dt.29.4.16 directing the O.P No.1 to make feasibility study of the proposed site and recommend the type of PLIP to be executed as admissible under State Agriculture Policy under Jalanidhi-1 vide its letter no.2M(12)77/201619015/Agril. dt.26.5.16. The copy of letter no.2M (12) 77/1619015/Agril dt.26.5.16 is annexed as Annexure-8.

The complainant again put his grievance before the Commissioner-Cum-Director of Agriculture and Food Production who directed the O.P No.1 to go ahead either for a shallow bore well or bore well to be ascertained after execution in the exact location and further directed that during execution of work the O.P No.2 to be present for inspection and recording technical parameters vide its letter no.40130 dt.18.11.16.  The copy of the letter no.40130 dt.18.11.16 is annexed as Annexure-9.

 The target for the Salipur Block was 5(five) tube wells, but O.Ps  returned   two bore wells.  From the conduct of the O.Ps, it is apparent that O.Ps especially O.P No.1 is in adamant not to execute in favour of the complainant.  The complainant was harassed due to non- cooperation of O.Ps, the complainant suffered heavy loss due to poor cultivation from the year 1998 till date.  He has sustained minimum loss of Rs.40,000/- per year.  Therefore the complainant prayed before the Hon’ble Forum claiming Rs.7,50,000/- towards the loss of crops and Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental shock and agony suffered due to deficiency in service by the O.Ps.

2. The O.Ps entered their appearance and filed their written version raising the question of maintainability on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.  The plea of the O.P is that the complainant applied for loan of estimated cost of relevant scheme but he has not impleaded the necessary parties as parties in this case and his land is homestead land, that is not permissible for execution of bore well under Private Lift Irrigation Project(PLIP).

The complainant belong to Salipur Block area and his landed properties are situated within a distance of about 2 to 3 Km from the bed of river Mahanadi where the relevant scheme is not applicable for digging bore well/deep tube well as the report of ground resources of Odisha 2011 issued by Directorate of Ground Water Survey and Investigation suggests that for Cuttack district, hard rock and sand stone underlain the western part of the district(Athagarh) and development of ground water in these part is feasible through dug wells and bore wells.  The eastern of the district is underlain by unconsolidated formation and adequate thickness of fresh water aquifers occurs in this area and development of ground water is feasible through dug wells, shallow tube wells and medium deep tube wells.  As such bore well is not permissible under the relevant scheme.

The complainant was always insisting the O.Ps and other officers for allowing his illegal claim for a bore well on a homestead plot which is contrary to the scheme.  That the bore well is not permissible under the scheme that too in the area under Salipur block.  The above complaint is not maintainable against the Governmental Authorities and liable to be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written version filed by the O.Ps. was filed by the complainant.  The complainant has averred that the O.Ps   have provided PLIP over the homestead land of beneficiaries in the Salipur as well as other agricultural district. The copy of the list of beneficiaries is annexed as Annexure-12.

During the course of argument the complainant submitted that O.Ps have installed bore well project under their block in favour of other persons.  The O.Ps have in their reply to the R.T.I application of the complainant have stated that no   information is  available to them regarding the approximate distance of project from the Mahanadi bed while the complainant’s land situated more than 5 Kms. far from the river bed.  The information received vide letter no.2093 dt.20.8.15 under R.T.I issued by the O.Ps is Annexure-13 and the letter no.2810 dt.13.12.18 is annexed as Annexure-14 to the complaint petition.  The complainant relied upon the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vrs. Balbir Singh reported in 2004 CTJ 605 Supreme Court(CP) wherein it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court that when the commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer, which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation.  The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him.  Any other construction would defeat the very purpose of the Act.  The commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services but also to compensate consumer for injustice suffered by him.  The consumer commissions/Forums have jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities.  Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen.

3. We have heard from the parties at length, perused the papers and documents filed by the respective parties and went through the pleadings.  Admittedly the complainant applied to the District Agriculture Officer for installation of bore well for agricultural purpose under Jalanidhi scheme of Govt. and the District Agriculture Officer directed the Assistant Agriculture Officer for an enquiry and to submit feasibility report.  Subsequently the O.P No.1 directed the O.P No.2 to conduct enquiry and submit report but he did not submit the feasibility report in spite of direction from his higher authority but directed the complainant to deposit towards farmer’s share.  Accordingly the son of the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.9,000/- in the year 2014 on behalf of the complainant.  Subsequently the O.P requested the complainant to take back the aforesaid amount without assigning any cogent reason which amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of O.Ps.  On the other hand the O.Ps contended that the complainant belongs to Salipur Block area and his landed property is situated within a distance of about 2 to 3 Km. from the bed of river Mahanadi where the relevant scheme is not applicable for digging of bore well/deep well as the report of ground resources of Odisha,2011 issued by Directorate of Ground Water Survey & Investigation suggests.

After hearing rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the O.Ps have harassed the complainant since 1999 by not submitting the feasibility report and also by receiving Rs.9000/- from the complainant and finally intimated that the complainant is not eligible for the scheme.The conduct of the O.Ps is not only arbitrary but negligent for which the complainant has suffered financial loss and injury and the O.Ps are liable to compensate for their negligence and the suffering of the complainant due to their misfeasance in public office.

ORDER

Basing upon the facts and circumstances, the complainant succeeds and O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) only towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant for a long time.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 9^th   day of November,2020  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                            Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (Sri D.C.Barik)

 President.