DIMAPUR, OCTOBER 3 (MExN): The Legal Aid Clinic (LAC), Tuensang issued a response to a recent statement issued by the VDB, VCC Shamator asking for details of particular VDBs which are not functioning under the VDB model rules.
A press note from Thsantong, Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) informed that the following VDBs had “willfully ignored certain sections of VDB Model Rules 1980 (Revised) under their respective villages.” They include, according to the PLV, the VDBs of Sangphur, Yakor, Chassir, Muleangkiur, Leangkonger, Shamator, Wapher, Lasokiu, Rurur, and Sikiur villages.
The statement claimed that these VDB’s had failed to hold at least two general body meetings of the VDBs during one financial year and has thus, failed to adhere Section 4 (a) of the VDB Model Rules 1980 (Revised).
It added that the VDBs also “willfully ignored” Section 4 (b) of the VDB Model Rules 1980 (Revised) as the Management Committee of the VDBs “were never entrusted with the management of the VDB and the funds of the VDBs.” “The affairs of the VDB Management Committee and its funds were directly exercised by the respective Village Council and the VDB Secretary,” it said.
The statement reminded that as per Section 7 of the said Rules “No Village Council Chairman or Head GB or Village Administration head etc shall be permitted to hold the post of the VDB Management Chairman.”
However, it informed that this was never implemented in letter and in spirit because the concerned Village Councils failed to appoint VDB Management Chairman till date. “Consequently, under willful violation of the said Rules, the Village Council Chairman was appointed or otherwise acting and exercising the powers and functions of VBD Management Chairman under RD Block Shamator till date owing to the reason best known to the concerned village council and the department,” it added.
Regarding the claim that “VDB Management Committee has been appointed by the Deputy Commissioner Tuensang and is functioning in all the VDBs under Shamator Block,” the Legal Aid Clinic said if this is the case, the Block Development Officer (BDO) RD Block Shamator should clarify certain queries within a period of seven days.
It asked what are the measures undertaken by the BDO for appointment of VDB Management Chairman till date under RD Block Shamator in accordance with the VDB Model Rules 1980 (Revised). It also questioned why were these Committees not entrusted or allowed to exercise the roles and responsibilities of the VDB Management Committee. Further the LAC sought detailed extracts of the VDB general body meeting minutes or resolutions so adopted during these meeting.
The LAC meanwhile noted that the State Government appoints the Village Council and that the ADC or DC only forwards their application to the Commissioner in accordance with The Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 and the concerned Village Council, chooses the members of the Management Committee of the VDB from among ‘The General Body of the VDB’ in accordance with the VDB Model Rules 1980 (Revised).
It therefore stated that the statement issued by the VDB & VCC Union Shamator RD Block “stands illogical as far as the present rate of implementation of VDB Model Rules 1980 (Revised) is concerned.”
The LAC also revealed that during a telephonic conversation, the President of the VDB & VCC RD Block Shamator had said that a resolution had been adopted by their union urging all the individuals to first obtain their approval before filing RTI in respect of RD Block Shamator. The LAC further claimed that “without this prior approval, the concerned individual or RTI Applicant is liable for questioning by the VDB & VCC Union.”
“Imposing such kind of ridiculous and nonsensical resolution upon the citizens shall invite legal course of action to be initiated against the very union as it is tantamount to breach of constitutionally guaranteed rights of its citizens under the RTI Act 2005,” the LAC observed.
