HC Seeks Bengal Govt's Explanation On Freezing Women Welfare Scheme In BJP-Held Village Panchayat

(MENAFN- IANS) Kolkata, Jan 29 (IANS) A division bench of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday sought an explanation from the West Bengal government on why financial benefits under a women-oriented state government scheme had been stopped in a particular village panchayat in East Midnapore, which is the native district of Suvendu Adhikari, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Assembly.

The division bench of Calcutta High Court's Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen directed the state government to submit a report to the court within the next two weeks.

The division bench gave this order, acting on a public interest litigation filed at the Calcutta High Court accusing the state government of freezing financial benefits under the Laxmir Bhandar scheme for 7,000 women in Bagcha Village Panchayat under Moyna Assembly constituency in East Midnapore district, where the elected legislator is Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s Ashok Dinda, a former Indian cricketer.

Laxmir Bhandar is the monthly dole scheme for women in the state. Under this state government scheme, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe women receive Rs 1,200 per month, and other women receive Rs 1,000.

The counsel for the petitioner and senior Bilwadal Bhattacharya, on Thursday, argued at the court that the benefits for 7,000 women in Bagcha Village Panchayat had been stopped since September last year. Bhattacharya accused the state government of deliberately freezing the financial benefits under the scheme since that particular village panchayat is being run by the BJP.

He also pointed out that the financial benefits under the scheme had been stopped, even though, as per the rule, the amount should be directly credited to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries from the office of the District Magistrate.

The state government counsel said that since there had been some complaints on allotment of benefits under the scheme, the matter was being investigated.

However, finally, the division bench accepted the argument of the petitioner's counsel and sought explanations from the state government.

MENAFN29012026000231011071ID1110667266