A significant controversy has erupted in Barmer district, Western Rajasthan, concerning alleged irregularities in the distribution of funds from the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT). Ravindra Singh Bhati, an independent Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Shiv constituency, has. Leveled serious accusations against the district administration and has subsequently moved the Rajasthan High Court. Following a hearing on the petition, the Honorable High Court has issued. A notice to the district administration, demanding a detailed response within four weeks. This development raises critical questions about the transparent allocation of funds derived from mineral resources and the rights of local areas, which are crucial for development projects in a mineral-rich district like Barmer.
Understanding the DMFT Fund and Its Purpose
The District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT) fund is a crucial financial mechanism established by both central and state governments. These funds are collected from areas where mineral extraction activities take place, with the primary objective of utilizing them for the development of villages and regions affected by mining. Due to extensive mineral extraction leases issued in Barmer district, this fund amounts to crores of rupees. These funds are specifically earmarked for essential infrastructure projects such as schools, hospitals, road construction, and water conservation, directly benefiting the local population. The DMFT fund serves as a vital tool to improve the living standards. Of mining-affected communities and mitigate the negative impacts of mining operations on their lives.
MLA Bhati's Serious Allegations
MLA Ravindra Singh Bhati has accused the district administration of alleged misuse of the DMFT funds. According to him, a substantial portion of the funds allocated for the Shiv assembly constituency was unfairly cut. More alarmingly, he claims that approvals for development works using these funds were granted in non-mining areas, despite the fund being specifically designated for mining-affected regions, while bhati has termed this act as 'theft,' emphasizing that these funds are the rightful entitlement of the local residents. He unequivocally stated that if the administration has deprived his constituency of its rightful share,. Then the judiciary remains the ultimate and only recourse to secure the rights of the public.
Alleged Discrepancies in Fund Allocation
Following a DMFT meeting, the District Collector had approved a total of 103 crore rupees for water, roads, education, and other development works across four assembly constituencies in Barmer district, while as per these approvals, the highest budget of 65 crore rupees was allocated to the Barmer assembly constituency, followed by Shiv with 18 crore rupees, Gudamalani with 15 crore rupees, and Chauhtan with 5 crore rupees. MLA Bhati argues that the amount allocated to the Shiv constituency is Notably less than its rightful share, and no satisfactory reason has been provided for this reduction, while he has described this distribution as arbitrary and unfair, asserting that it negatively impacts the development of his region.
The Role of the Judiciary and Future Course of Action
MLA Bhati stated that when he inquired about the reason for the fund. Cut, he received no satisfactory response, which led him to seek legal recourse. The High Court, recognizing the gravity of the matter, has explicitly directed the district administration to present a complete report detailing the method of fund distribution and the underlying reasons to the court. This judicial intervention is a crucial step towards ensuring transparency and accountability. In the coming four weeks, the district administration will have to clarify its position and explain the basis on which the funds were distributed. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for future development projects and the management of DMFT funds in Barmer district. It remains to be seen what information the district administration will present following the court's order and whether it will ultimately safeguard the rights of the local populace.
