High Court questions State's decision on scrap of Zunka-Bhakar scheme

High Court questions State's decision on scrap of Zunka-Bhakar scheme
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

JULY 4: The state government was today asked by the Bombay High Court to furnish material, records or any reports based on which it had scrapped the 1995 Zunka-Bhakar scheme in the state.

The division bench of Chief Justice B P Singh and Justice S Radhakrishnan directed additional advocate general P Janardhanan to file an affidavit by July 18, 2000 giving details of complaints received of violations of the scheme statewide and action taken against erring stall owners and other relevant statistics by July 18, 2000. The next date of hearing is July 25, 2000

The bench also directed that material be given to the petitioners, who number to 45 plus to file counters to the affidavit. Till then, the court directed the state to desist from taking any action against any stall owner. Additional advocate general P Janardhanan stated that he had given orders to his officers.

The directions came in the wake of allegations of around 45 petitions filed in the court, challenging the decision to scrap the scheme. Senior counsel Bal Apte, appearing for the Mumbai Zunka Bhakar Chalak Sanghatana argued that except for an affidavit where the state government simply claimed that the scheme was a ``failure'', it had failed to show any other material on which it had decided to scrap the scheme. He pointed out that action had apparently been taken against 625 stalls for not following the scheme of selling zunka bhakar, and these stalls were closed down. However, he contended that the remaining of the 6000 stall owners could not be punished in such a generalised manner.

Admitting their stance, Justice Singh observed that there was indeed no material before the court to conclude why the scheme affecting 25,000 persons had to be disbanded. `It is not just enough to show `sufficient' cause, but the basis of the action taken has to be shown to be existing,'' the Chief Justice remarked.

Defending the government, Janardhanan argued that the scheme was deemed a failure by the previous government, the very creators of the scheme, when they stopped the subsidy on April 1, 1999. ``There was no hue and cry then..nobody went to court then..what we have done is only a logical conclusion, scrapping the scheme, since it was a failure'', he said.

According to the affidavit filed by the state government, the stalls were supposed to sell a certain amount of zunka-bhakar for Re 1 and obtain its subsidy from the government. He stated that the government had received reports from various agencies, including the press, that while zunka-bhakar was not being sold, the stalls were running like `five star hotels'.

This, though was countered by the advocates for the petitioners who pointed out that nowhere did the scheme prohibit the owners from selling other foodstuffs, especially since there was no government subsidy in Mumbai. Advocate R S Apte, argued that the scheme was a success in rural Maharashtra. Advocate Niteen Pradhan argued that the scheme could not be taken away since the right to a livelihood of the unemployed and women who were given such stalls were protected under Article 21 and Article 41 of the Constitution.

However, the Chief Justice pointed out that the scheme was for the benefit of the poor and if the state government felt that they were no longer being benefitted, it was within its right to scrap it as a policy decision. ``When a scheme fails it depends not on an individual case but on the overall performance. When a project is completed or abandoned, one has to go.'' he observed.