Activate Executive Magistrate Courts - SDOs can hear more cases personally

Recently I had opportunity to interact with the practising lawyers of Krishnagar court, wherein the present status of pendency of court cases and quality of disposal was also came up during discussion. I have also examined some of the case records disposed off by Executive Magistrates in three Subdivisions recently. General observations on the functioning of the Executive Magistrate courts are as follows :-

• 
  
  There is practice in all the courts to accept the petitions under 107-116, 133, 144 or 145 CrPC without hearing by the Executive Magistrate personally, not even going through the contents of the petitions filed. As a result of this, petitions which are not maintainable under preventive sections of CrPC are accepted by Executive Magistrates. There should be examination of records related to land/ property if the land dispute is the cause of the apprehension of breach of peace. Only on satisfaction that the petitioner is legitimate owner or claimant of the property/ land under dispute, Executive Magistrate may accept the petition under relevant sections of law. If the claim is not legally maintainable, order of the Executive Magistrate court can be challenged in the court of law and likely to be set aside.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Whenever, there is order from civil court regarding the title/ status quo, Executive Magistrate can pass the orders for its compliance if proper copies are filed. But in absence of any document or evidence on support of petitions filed, the case may be rejected on its filing stage itself. No Executive Magistrate should allow the court clerk to file cases on his behalf, unless it is personally heard by him.
  
  
  
• 
  
  In most of the cases, a report is sought from police or BLLROs. Thereafter, the case disposal depends upon timely submission of reports. It is also seen that reports of court are not taken seriously by the Police or BLRRO as a result of which justice is not only delayed but denied in most of the cases. Unfortunately, pending reports are not personally pursued by the Executive Magistrate courts. Preventive sections of CrPC are provided for quick and speedy remedy to the public. Delay in disposal due to non availablity of reports or slow disposal by courts frustrates the sole purpose of such  magsiterial powers to us.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Deputy Magistrates are otherwise busy with their official assignments, therefore, sometimes can't hold courts as per prescribed schedule. There is also shortage of the Magistrates in some of the Subdivisions. But, there is practice of Executive Magistrates in some of the Subdivisions to hold the court on two days each week due to shortage of officers. It is noted that the dates of cases are assigned by the court clerk as per his convenience without ensuring that all cases filed/ being heard by a particular Executive Magistrates are heard by him only on all subsequent dates. Legally, cases filed/ heard by one Executive Magistrate can't be disposed off by any other Executive Magistrate unless such case is transferred by SDM or DM to another EM.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Cases more than six months are still dragged in the Executive Magsiatre courts, though law does not allow this without specific orders.
  
  
  

In above context, may I request SDOs to review the position in their Executive Magistrate courts and take effective steps to improve the performance. SDOs must hold court on atleast one day in a week for two hours for case filing/ hearing of important cases. Cases from overburdened EMs can be transferred to their own file. A line in compliance is expected.

Recruitment in ICDS and ASHA - SDOs/ BDOs may invoke proactive dislcosure under RTI to ensure transparency

We have completed the recruitment of ASHA under NRHM in the selected blocks and list is likely to be approved by the State Govt by October, 2009. It is yet to be finalised in two to three blocks. More than dozen high court cases were filed against the selection committees last year for lack of transparency and unjustified  & unfair interview marking to eliminate meritoriuos candidates or deprivation of deserving candidates. Complaints against the recruitment irregularties were mainly on two grounds :-

1. 
   
   At the time of application some of the candidates not generally the residents of the sevice area of the sub centre were allowed to apply and were selected also showing false documents or acquired documents. In some cases, to eliminate the candidate with high marks in Madhyamik, applications were wrongly rejected on residential status grounds. It is the residential status at the time of application which is important, but always confused with the permanent residence/ domicile in case of married women living with in laws, not with parents place which is located in the sub centre service area or vice versa.
   
   
   
2. 
   
   Selection committee comprising of GP Prodhan, BDO's nominee, Health Supervisor, ANM conducts interview for 20 marks, while 80 marks is assigned for marks obtained in the MP (only compulsory subjects). It is found that some of the GP Prodhans and health personnel awarded zero or less than 1 mark out of 20 to the candidates having highest marks in MP examination so as to eliminate her from the selection. Even, marks as low as 0.001, 0.01, 0.04 were awarded by only two members out of four in several blocks, which is not only unjustified but against principles of natural justice.
   
   
   

It is suggested that Block level Health & Family Welfare Samity must do perform their duties sincerely while scrutinising the panels prepared by GPs. It is often stated that the selection committee at GP is well within their rights to award zero marks or near zero marks as per guidelines. It is true, but unethical and unfair to the deserving candidates. SDOs/ BDOs can issue advise to the selection committee and block samities to publish the panel showing the marks obtained by the candidates in interview and MP examination under proactive disclosure of RTI. Even candidates can be encouraged to seek such information under RTI. We must ensure trasnparency and fairness in selection.

1784 additional ICDS centres have been sanctioned in our district in August 2009. Recruitments shall take place by December 2009. Project level selection committee must ensure transaparency in selection process and disclose the present panel, vacancies. They must also publish the panel showing marks obtained in written and interview.

Rural Electrification - RGGVY needs involvement of Panchayat Bodies

Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) survey work is in progress throughout the district. As per the sanction accorded to the agency REC limited, 1222 moujas comprising of  3842 locations (villages, hamlets, paras etc) shall be covered against sanctioned cost of Rs 122 Crores. DPR provides household connection to 236000 BPL families.

Salient features of the scheme in Nadia district are as follows :-

• 
  
  Each BPL family as per RHS published in 2007 plus revised RHS published in August 2009 shall be provided with free electric service connection, meter, one bulb fitting by the agency.
  
  
  
• 
  
  No charges for installation of meter, electric poles, construction of plateform to fit the meter in case of semi pucca or kutcha houses etc is required to be paid by the BPL families.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Only the villages/ locations listed in the DPR shall be covered under RGGVY, the list is available with blocks and agency. If not available, copies can be collected from development section of Collectorate. The list can be downloaded from http://rggvy.gov.in/rggvy/rggvyportal/bcovered.jsp?stcd=19&dtcd=10
  
• BDOs must ensure that this information is available at all GPs also. It should be noted that all villages/ hamlets may not be listed in the DPR for reasons beyond our control at present. It has been decided that such missing or left out villages/ hamlets shall be surveyed separately and funds for electrification of such locations shall be provided by the state Govt. Similarly, locations with less than 100 population (not families) is also not covered under the scope of work of RGGVY. It is also covered under State budget. There are reports that some of the GPs are not allowing the survey unless locations not listed in DPR are also surveyed simultaneously. While their demand is logically justified, it is not possible for the present agency to take up the work as it is not covered under their MoU. WBSEDCL has indicated to finalise the agency for such left out work by November 2009.
  
  
  
• 
  
  All villages in DPR shall be surveyed to provide universal coverage of BPL families irrespective of total cost requirements/ DPR provisions. That means, actual household connections as derived from the field survey shall be taken up and required number of electric poles, transmission materials, wires etc shall be sanctioned to the locations. It is reported that in some of the villages agency people have trucncated their work as per  the DPR sanction, thereby not covering 100 % BPL families. Such complaints should be reported to us for redressal. However, if less more than two poles are required to cover only 2-3 BPL families in a village/ para, agency shall not provide service connection.
  
  
  
• 
  
  BPL list must have been publsihed by BDOs at all GPs and shall be used for the purpose. No BPL based on PDS ration cards/ GP certificate etc shall be allowed to identify the beneficiaries.
  
  
  
• 
  
  To ensure transparency the agency has been asked to furnish soft copies of draft drawings of each location to BDOs through email for onward transmission and display at all the GPs. Draft drawing covers map of the location area, electric pole, transformer locations, list of BPL families identified for service connection from the field survey. It is two to three page report for each location. GPs are at liberty to send their suggestion/ objections against such draft estimates within 15 days of its receipt, but prior to the commencement of the actual pole erection work by the agency vendors. BDOs has to monitor this social auditing and ensure proper coordination.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Additional transformers as per the load requirement shall be installed to take care of APL consumers and commercial requirements.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Our target is to complete field survey by end of October 2009 and vetting of drawing estimates by GPs by Middle of December 2009. The work of pole erection can commence from December 2009 and all electrification work is likely to be completed by October 2010 throughout the district.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Blocks must collect the list of villages not covered in the present DPR and furnish the consolidated report giving the number of BPL families so that the list can be sent to WBSEDCL for sanction of fund. Work of electrification in these locations shall be taken up shortly. Tender for such work is under process.
  
  
  
• 
  
  We have conducted meetings with all PRI bodies in the month of September 2009 and clarified all the issues involved. It is suggetsed to hold meetings at Block level with the project engineers of the agency to review the progress. Meetings at GP can take place only after the drawings are submitted to them. Under no circumstances the survey work should halt.
  
  
  
• 
  
  For any clarification BDOs may contact ADM Dev or DM Nadia.