Digital Desk: According to Live Law, the
Gauhati High Court issued contempt notices to Assam government officials on Friday, January 21 for failing to comply with court orders to arrange for finances for three transgender shelter facilities.
Partha Pratim Mazumdar, the secretary of the state's social welfare department, and Bibhash Modi, its director, were summoned by a bench of Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Malasri Nandi to appear before the court and "explain why it should not proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971."
In Assam, there are just three shelter homes, all of which are in desperate need of funds.
According to the publication, the bench directed cash disbursement on September 22 after the All Assam Transgender Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) case.
The appeal was about the only three transgender shelter homes in Assam, which were running out of money due to a monthly cost of roughly Rs 15 lakh each.
Kamrup, Dhubri district, and Bongaigaon all have these shelters.
According to reports, the director of social welfare wrote on January 20 that appropriate action would be done only once they were confident that the monies would be used effectively.
The letter does not explain why the court's earlier orders to provide for funding were not followed, according to the court.
Also Read: JNU Teachers Association Questions Delay in Appointment of University VC, Asks to Appoint Full-Time VC
It noted that although the authorities would always "be at liberty to examine if the funds had been properly utilised or not and also take necessary action in the event of misappropriation of funds, these could not constitute grounds for not releasing funds," Live Law reported.
The bench reportedly noted that the authorities had only issued Rs 1.6 crore of the Rs 2 crore sanctioned for the fiscal year 2019-20.
According to the court, a certificate signed by numerous department employees also revealed that there was no unspent amount at the end of the fiscal year.
According to the article, the bench concluded that the respondent authorities' affidavit-in-opposition about the grounds for not complying with its September 22 orders did not satisfy it.
On February 1, the case will be heard again.
Leave A Comment