WP/6423/2008 of S. Satyavathi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2013

Conclusion

ORDER:

In this Writ Petition, the point that arises for consideration iswhether the Forest Department can pay lesser rates for the works gotexecuted by it from the Scheduled Tribe members of Vana SamrakshanaSamithi than the rates fixed by it under Forest Schedule of Rates.

As per the averments in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is theChairman of Vana Samrakshana Samithi, Narsapuram, GokavaramRange, Kakinada, East Godavari District. The Andhra PradeshCommunity Forest Management Scheme was launched under WorldBank Aided Project in Kakinada Division of Rajahmundry Circle for aperiod of 5 years from 2002-03 to 2006-07. A budget of 30 crores wassanctioned for treating the forest area by involving the local VanaSamrakshana Samithi people in 5 different treatment models. The reachcovered in 5 treatment models in around 32,500 hectares and 466 VanaSamrakshana Samithies were involved. These 466 Vana SamrakshanaSamithies are in 7 Ranges of Kakinada Division of East Godavari Districtunder the scheme of the Soil and Moisture Conservation (SMC). Theranges are (i) Eleswaram; (ii) Sudikonda; (iii)Rajavommangi; (iv)Gokavaram; (v) R.Chodavaram; (vi) Addathigala and (vii) Maredumilli. The treated area came to around 20,000 hectares and the total setsexecuted were 24,060 in the financial year 2003-04 in the above ranges. Each set consists of one silt trap and three sunken gully pits. Thedesigned estimates for the execution of sunken gully pits wascommunicated by the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry in hisReference No.4474/2000/M5, dated 29.09.2002 as CircularNo.5/2002/M5. The rates adopted in the estimate for earth work andrevetments were as per the Standard Scheduled Rates fixed for the yearin which works were executed. The Standard Scheduled Rates (SSR)for the year 2003-04 have come into effect from 01.06.2003. Themembers of the Vana Samrakshana Samithi were paid the amounts based on 2000-01 SSR only. As this caused huge loss to them, theysubmitted a representation on 27.04.2004 to the Hon’ble Chief Ministerand various authorities seeking payment for the works executed by themas per the SSR pertaining to the financial year 2003-04. Thecomparative rates are as follows:

-- 200001 200304

“The rates are: Earth Work = @ Rs.26.6.Cmt. @ Rs.27/Cmt. Revetment = @ Rs.169.5/Cmt. @ Rs.276.19/Cmt.”

All the members of the Vana Samrakshana Samithi are poor tribalpeople and they depend upon daily wages for their bread and butter. The works undertaken by them are the main source of their livelihood. Inpursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18801 of 2007 dated27.09.2007, the District Forest Officer (Divisional Forest Officer) passedorders on the representation of the Narasapuram Vana SamarkshanaSamithi. He rejected the request vide proceedings No.6479/2007-D2dated 20.11.2007 for revision of SSR rates for the works executed bythem during the year 2003-04. Challenging the same, the petitioner filedthe present writ petition.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the Soil andMoisture Conservation works were executed through 418 VanaSamrakshana Samithies under Andhra Pradesh Community ForestManagement and R.I.D.F.VIII Schemes in 7 ranges of Kakinada Divisionduring the year 2003-04, but not through 466 Vana SamrakshanaSamithis as mentioned by the petitioner in her affidavit. The sunken gullypits that were executed during 2003-04 financial year were 24,415 sets in7 ranges of Kakinada Division. It is admitted that the rates adopted in theestimate for earth work and revetments were as per the SSR for the year2000-01 and the revised rates for the year 2003-04 have come into forcefrom 01.06.2003. The Vana Samrakshana Samithi members, afterconducting meetings, have agreed for the rate of Rs.1,220/- for the year2000-01, recorded resolutions, carried out the works during September2003 and the payments were made according to the rates accepted by

them. The estimates were sanctioned in the month of November 2003and payments were made accordingly. In view of the payments alreadymade, the question of revision of rates does not arise. The petitionergave a statement before the Forest Range Officer, Sudikonda on14.11.2007 stating that due to her lack of education andmisunderstanding of the facts, the demand was made for payment ofdifferential amount after completion of works. She also gave anotherstatement on 16.11.2007 stating that basing on the rates proposed theworks were completed and also stated that there is no objection todispose of the representation as per the orders of this Court inW.P.No.18801 of 2007 dated 27.09.2007. Though, the works wereexecuted by 418 Vana Samrakshana Samithies in 7 ranges of KakinadaDivision, no Samithi raised this objection except the petitioner and somecomplaints were received recently from few Vana SamrakshanaSamithis. This is an after thought of the petitioner. After the interimorders of this Court in the present writ petition, the claim of the petitionerwas re-examined and appropriate orders were passed on 10.02.2009and communicated to the petitioner by the 4[th] respondent.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for the respondents.

It is an admitted case between the parties that the members of theSamithi have passed a resolution in the month of September 2003, theestimates were sanctioned in the month of November 2003 and thepayments were made as per the Standard Schedule Rates of 2000-01even though new schedule of rates for the year 2003-04 came into effectfrom 01.06.2003.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the estimatesare prepared by the Forest Department Officials and based on theestimates only the work was entrusted to them. The members of Samithiare Tribals and mostly uneducated and they are not aware of the exactrates payable to them. They were given to understand that properStandard Schedule Rates were fixed for executing the work andbelieving that statement only they have undertaken the work. Later on they came to know about the payment of lesser rates for the worksexecuted. It is also their case that even at the time of executing the workthey were not aware of the revision of rates by then and payment at theold rates for the works executed even after revision of rates is nothing butexploitation of labour. The SSR rates are revised every year. Therevised rates come into force from 1[st] of the June of that year and will bein force till 31[st] May of next year. There is no reason for the respondentsto apply the SSR rates of 2000-01 for the works executed during the year2003-04. The difference in rates comes to Rs.106.69 per cubic meterand in each set of revetment 3.47 cubic meters of work would beinvolved. It is also their case that according to Section 99(1) of ForestCode, the work has to be executed only after sanction of the estimate. The estimate was sanctioned after 01.06.2003 only.

On the other hand, the learned Asst. Government Pleaderappearing for the Respondents contends that the Petitioner passedresolution, estimates were prepared and the rates were paid as per theestimates only. The Petitioners also accepted the rates but as an afterthought, the present Writ Petition was filed.

The works were executed by the Forest Department, a wing of theState Government under World Bank Aided Project. Article 39 of theDirective Principles of State Policy ordain that the State shall direct itspolicy towards securing that the citizens have the right to an adequatemeans of livelihood. Article 43 states that the State shall endeavour tosecure, by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any otherway, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a livingwage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life etc. Article46 states that the State shall promote with special care the educationaland economic interests of weaker sections of people, and, in particular, ofthe SCs and STs, and shall protect them from social injustice and allforms of exploitation. Thus, the Constitution of India protects the interestof STs from all forms of exploitation and fair conditions of work. It isunfortunate that the forest department justifies its action for payment of lesser rates than the Standard Schedule Rates fixed by it for execution ofworks undertaken by them on the ground of acceptance of the same bythe Samithis. A hungry man knows no law but filling his belly. State isunder an obligation to implement the provisions of the Constitution andimplementation of its own orders. It cannot act like a private contractorlooking for an opportunity to exploit. The justification made in the counteraffidavit amply makes it clear the exploitation and support for the same. Though, a stand taken in the counter affidavit that in pursuance of theinterim directions of this Court in this writ petition the case of thepetitioner was considered and suitable orders were passed on10.02.2009 those orders read as follows:

“As per the directions, the request of Smt.S.Satyavathi, President,Narasapuram Vana Samrakshana Samithi is re-examined and rejectedher request for the following reasons:

1. Estimates for the above work of sunken gully pits were preparedand submitted by the Vana Samrakshana Samithi itself.and submitted by the Vana Samrakshana Samithi itself.

2. All works were carried out by the Vana Samrakshana Samithimembers by themselves and obtained payment as per theestimates nearly 4 years back.members by themselves and obtained payment as per theestimates nearly 4 years back.

3. The payments were already made for the works executed. Hence no differential amount is possible as per StandardSchedule of Rates for the year 2003-04 with effect from01.06.2003. The Vigilance and Enforcement officials havepointed out that under size stone was utilized in construction ofSunken Gully pits and found that excess expenditure wascharged. Action is being initiated against the concerned forestsubordinates.Hence no differential amount is possible as per StandardSchedule of Rates for the year 2003-04 with effect from01.06.2003. The Vigilance and Enforcement officials havepointed out that under size stone was utilized in construction ofSunken Gully pits and found that excess expenditure wascharged. Action is being initiated against the concerned forestsubordinates.

Receipt of these orders shall be acknowledged by return of postand submit to this office.

Sd./- J.S.N. Murthy,District Forest Officer, Kakinada.

ToSmt. S. Satyavathi,President,Narasapuram Vana Samrakshana Samithi.Sudikonda Range.”

The A.P. Forest Department Code-Vol.I, Chapter VIII deals withworks. Article 98 deals with Schedule of Rates. It says that the minimum

wages as notified by labour department under minimum wages Act.1948, and the daily wages as notified by District Collector concernedshall be kept in view while finalizing Forest Schedule of Rates. Thespecifications and rates adopted in adjoining Zones should also be keptin view while revising schedule of rates to avoid large variation in ratesfor work of similar specifications in different but adjoining Circles. Article99 deals with sanction of estimates and it reads as follows:

The estimates for works should be prepared based on approvedschedule of Rates. No expenditure should be incurred without asanctioned estimate (see Article 3 and 38 of A.P. Financial Vol. I).The estimate should be sanctioned by competent authority. Asingle work should not be allowed to be split for avoiding sanctionfrom higher authorities. For the purpose of determining competentauthority for sanction of any estimate, all components, such as costof material, labor, cost of wood etc., should be considered. For spillover works, the entire expenditure on the whole work is to be take.schedule of Rates. No expenditure should be incurred without asanctioned estimate (see Article 3 and 38 of A.P. Financial Vol. I).The estimate should be sanctioned by competent authority. Asingle work should not be allowed to be split for avoiding sanctionfrom higher authorities. For the purpose of determining competentauthority for sanction of any estimate, all components, such as costof material, labor, cost of wood etc., should be considered. For spillover works, the entire expenditure on the whole work is to be take.

The Conservator may give a written order for the starting of aspecially urgent work, before a proper estimates for it has beenprepared and sanctioned by a competent authority. No report needbe sent to the Accountant General when such a work is started, butth e Conservator should report the facts to the Principal ChiefConservator when he issues such an order in regard to a workwhich requires the sanction of Principal Chief Conservator (SeeNote 2, Art. 169 A. P. Financial Code).specially urgent work, before a proper estimates for it has beenprepared and sanctioned by a competent authority. No report needbe sent to the Accountant General when such a work is started, butth e Conservator should report the facts to the Principal ChiefConservator when he issues such an order in regard to a workwhich requires the sanction of Principal Chief Conservator (SeeNote 2, Art. 169 A. P. Financial Code).

One cannot expect the poor tribals to understand the technique of preparation of estimates for the works and revision of rates every year. The plea taken by the respondents that the payments were already madeas per the estimates is untenable. This court, being part of the State, hasa duty to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy whileapplying the law to the facts of the case. Further the Forest Schedule ofRates are prepared keeping the minimum wages under the MinimumWages Act, 1948 and daily wages fixed by the District Collector. Therespondents cannot pay to the members of the Petitioner Samithi lessthan the rates fixed in the Forest Schedule of Rates.

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents aredirected to calculate the rates payable to the members of the petitionerVana Samrakshana Samithi as per the (Forest) Standard ScheduleRates for the year 2003-2004 and pay the difference in rates within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Noorder as to costs.

Date: 31.12.2013ska

______________________

A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO