Guwahati, Jan 31: Two officials of the Assam social welfare department have been issued contempt notices by Gauhati High Court for non-compliance with an order of the court pertaining to release of funds for shelter homes catering to members of the transgender community.
Partha Pratim Mazumdar, secretary, Assam social welfare department, and Bibhash Modi, director of the department, have been directed to personally appear before the High Court on February 1, 2022 “to explain why they should not be proceeded further under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.”
The court had on September 22, 2021 issued an order directing release of funds three shelter homes – at Kamrup (Metro), Dhubri and Bongaigaon districts.
The court issued the order while adjudicating upon a public interest litigation (PIL) moved by the All Assam Transgender Association pertaining
The problem highlighted in the PIL was that the shelter homes faced a funds crunch and that each shelter home had a monthly expense of around Rs 15 lakh.
The court also took on record a letter, dated January 20, 2022, issued by the director, social welfare, wherein it was stated that the authorities were examining the matter afresh for release of funds and that on being satisfied that the funds would be properly utilised, necessary action would be taken.
“But there is no explanation as to why the order passed by this court on September 22, 2021 could not be implemented,” the court observed pursuant to the perusal of the letter.
“In our view, though the authorities will be always at liberty to examine if the funds had been properly utilised or not and also take necessary action if there be any misutilisation of funds, these could not be grounds for not releasing the funds as directed by this court,” the bench observed.
Noting that the utilisation certificate, dated February 22, 2021, for an amount of Rs 1.60 crore had been issued by the authorities out of Rs 2 crore sanctioned during 2019-20, the court further observed that there was no unspent balance at the end of the financial year.
“We are therefore not satisfied with the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent authorities pertaining to the reasons behind the non-compliance with the court’s order,” the bench said.
