Dimapur, April 9 (MExN): Three former village council members of Diphupar ‘B’ today issued a rejoinder over a statement issued earlier by a forum alleging ‘anomalies’ in village council funds.
The rejoinder was appended by former chairman Kakiho Achumi, secretaries Mhathung Lotha and Sashi Ao. They said “a group of few individuals in the name of so-called All Communities Forum are misleading and confusing the people including the villagers by creating unnecessary problem and leveling baseless allegation on former chairman and members of Diphupar ‘B’ Village Council and even accusing the district administration of ‘shielding the corruption of wrongdoers and anomalies of village council’ for their selfish interest.”
Whatever the district administration “has initiated in regard” to Diphupar ‘B’ Village Council, the rejoinder stated, is purely for the benefit and welfare of the village and not for any other reason as the forum alleged. “Rather, it is those individuals who are interested in their selfish benefit at the cost of whole villages’ interest,” the three former council members stated.
Over the issue of “non-cooperation by councils’ former chairman and former secretary and VDB secretary for conducting audit”, the rejoinder said “we the undersigned along with members of the dissolved village council, even before the order of the administration was issued, extended our co-operation for auditing while also urging the GBs concerned for early election of new council chairman and members in the interest of the villagers.”
Instead of constituting a new council, the head GB of the village constituted an audit committee on his own and that too according to his own convenience, the three persons stated. “It may be mentioned that auditing of the council has never been done before since the village was recognized by the government in 1992. However, four audit committees were constituted besides the one constituted this time by the GB himself.”
Stating to have ‘committed to uphold the interest of the village and its people’, the three said to have agreed for audit to be conducted “but we cannot let the audit be conducted by committee that is hand picked by the head GB for his own convenience”.
“The head GB holds chairmanship post of various government schemes in the village and how could he appoint members of audit committee. Therefore we opposed to present our audit before the non-transparent committee constituted by the head GB and appealed to the court of law for justice,” the rejoinder stated.
The three former council members said that the Gauhati High Court, Kohima bench “outrightly” passed judgment “in our favor stating that appointing members for audit committee by a person, who is personally involved in schemes and developmental project could influence the other members of committee in those projects he had supervised, and issued an order to suspend the committee till 25th April, 2011.”
Denying that they are “creating this crisis but it is those people who are least concerned for the village and are playing delay tactic for their selfish interest,” the rejoinder asserted “if at all those gentlemen are bothered for the village then they should have pressed for timely set-up or new council.”
The rejoinder was appended by former chairman Kakiho Achumi, secretaries Mhathung Lotha and Sashi Ao. They said “a group of few individuals in the name of so-called All Communities Forum are misleading and confusing the people including the villagers by creating unnecessary problem and leveling baseless allegation on former chairman and members of Diphupar ‘B’ Village Council and even accusing the district administration of ‘shielding the corruption of wrongdoers and anomalies of village council’ for their selfish interest.”
Whatever the district administration “has initiated in regard” to Diphupar ‘B’ Village Council, the rejoinder stated, is purely for the benefit and welfare of the village and not for any other reason as the forum alleged. “Rather, it is those individuals who are interested in their selfish benefit at the cost of whole villages’ interest,” the three former council members stated.
Over the issue of “non-cooperation by councils’ former chairman and former secretary and VDB secretary for conducting audit”, the rejoinder said “we the undersigned along with members of the dissolved village council, even before the order of the administration was issued, extended our co-operation for auditing while also urging the GBs concerned for early election of new council chairman and members in the interest of the villagers.”
Instead of constituting a new council, the head GB of the village constituted an audit committee on his own and that too according to his own convenience, the three persons stated. “It may be mentioned that auditing of the council has never been done before since the village was recognized by the government in 1992. However, four audit committees were constituted besides the one constituted this time by the GB himself.”
Stating to have ‘committed to uphold the interest of the village and its people’, the three said to have agreed for audit to be conducted “but we cannot let the audit be conducted by committee that is hand picked by the head GB for his own convenience”.
“The head GB holds chairmanship post of various government schemes in the village and how could he appoint members of audit committee. Therefore we opposed to present our audit before the non-transparent committee constituted by the head GB and appealed to the court of law for justice,” the rejoinder stated.
The three former council members said that the Gauhati High Court, Kohima bench “outrightly” passed judgment “in our favor stating that appointing members for audit committee by a person, who is personally involved in schemes and developmental project could influence the other members of committee in those projects he had supervised, and issued an order to suspend the committee till 25th April, 2011.”
Denying that they are “creating this crisis but it is those people who are least concerned for the village and are playing delay tactic for their selfish interest,” the rejoinder asserted “if at all those gentlemen are bothered for the village then they should have pressed for timely set-up or new council.”
.jpeg)
