K. SREEDHARAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is a public interest litigation. Petitioner claims to be a social worker and organiser of Adivasi Seva Mandal, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. He prays for ordering inquiry into the affairs of Gujarat Maritime Board preferably through the Central bureau of Investigation. The averment made by the petitioner is that Gujarat Maritime board is indulging in financial irregularities causing heavy loss to the public which warrants thorough inquiry. ( 2 ) MR. C. M. Parmar, Deputy Secretary to the Gujarat Maritime Board has sworn to an affidavit-in-reply. The stand taken in that affidavit is that this petition is not maintainable as a public interest litigation for petitioner is not an aggrieved party and none of his fundamental rights are affected by the activities of the Board. Even though various allegations of irregularities mentioned by the petitioner in this application have been denied, no details in support of the denial are given in the reply. After denying the allegations deponent was concentrating on absence of locus standi on the part of the petitioner. ( 3 ) PETITONER states that mismanagement of the affairs of the Board has resulted into huge loss to the tune of crores of rupees to the public. He states that nearly fifty crores of rupees have been misappropriated by the officers and administrators of the Board and this fact was published in newspapers. Publication of such news item in the media is not disputed in the reply, but what the deponent states is that publication of news was an activity of the present petitioner and that this Court should direct the Press Council of india to take appropriate action against such newspapers run and managed by blackmailers and those who indulge in yellow journalism. On this count it is worthwhile to note that the Board has not moved even its little finger till date to proceed against those publishers who caused the news items published. ( 4 ) ANOTHER allegation mentioned by the petitioner is that fixed deposits made by the board with Banks were not renewed on the expiry of the term of the deposits and thereby the Board sustained huge loss on account of loss of interest. ( 4 ) ANOTHER allegation mentioned by the petitioner is that fixed deposits made by the board with Banks were not renewed on the expiry of the term of the deposits and thereby the Board sustained huge loss on account of loss of interest. This averment is countered by stating that "there was not a single case wherein the bank was supposed to pay interest and the Board had not recovered the same resulted in loss of income to the Board. " On fixed deposit getting matured, it is to be encashed or renewed, otherwise fixed deposit will not carry further interest. Petitioners case is that on account of the failure on the part of the Board in renewing the fixed deposits it lost future interest. Such allegations has not been specifically denied in the reply. ( 5 ) PETITIONER states that the Board sanctioned amounts to the contractors for works which have not been carried out by them. When inquiry into that incident was about to be launched officers who were concerned with the overpayment destroyed various pages from the measurement book. Page numbers 958427, 958428 and 958429 were removed from Measurement Book No. 19169. This allegation is virtually admitted in the reply. But the stand taken is that higher officers conducted inquiry against the concerned officers who removed the pages, found them not guilty and closed matter by giving censure. ( 6 ) PETITIONER states that a Dumper bearing Registration No. GRR 3473 costing Rs. 2,60,000/- was stolen from the premises of the Board. No effective attempt was made to trace the vehicle or the culprits who removed the same. Since the vehicle was not insured, the Board sustained loss on account of theft of that vehicle. This averment is also conceded in the reply. The stand taken by the Board is that complaint was filed with the police at the relevant time and it is pending at the "charge-sheet stage". ( 7 ) YET another allegation made by the petitioner is non-encashment of Postal Orders submitted by the candidates who applied for various posts under the Board pursuant to notification in newspapers. Candidates who sought employment under the Board were to file their applications along with Postal Orders. Postal Orders which were submitted during the financial year 1983-84 have not been encashed upto 1994-95 and thereby the board has sustained huge loss. Candidates who sought employment under the Board were to file their applications along with Postal Orders. Postal Orders which were submitted during the financial year 1983-84 have not been encashed upto 1994-95 and thereby the board has sustained huge loss. Reply to this allegation in the affidavit is worth reading. It runs as follows :". . . . . . . . I deny that the Postal Order which the Board collected from the candidates for the post of clerk cum typist in 1983-84 were not encashed upto 1994-95 which is nothing but carelessness and negligence on the part of the responsible authority and particularly the respondent No. . . . . is responsible, as alleged or otherwise. This averment made in this petition does not carry any meaning and this deponent is unable to understand what is indicated by such sentence. However, in sum and substance, it appears that the petitioner wants to convey that because of such negligence administration by the officers of the board, the Board has suffered financial loss. However, assuming though not admitting that such a negligence is shown by the officers of the Board, then also, its hard to believe how such a loss would have been caused to the Board to the tune of Rs. 50 crores. . . . . . "petitioner has no case that loss of Rs. 50 crores was on account of non-encashment of the Postal Orders. His case is that non-encashment of Postal Orders also contributed to the loss totalling to Rs. 50 crores. The above so-called denial made on behalf of the Board in the reply, according to us, amounts to an admission on the part of the Board that Postal orders filed during 1983-84 remianed as such without being encashed till 1994-95. ( 8 ) GUJARAT Maritime Board is creation of a statute namely, the Gujarat Maritime board Act, 1981. It is a Public Body. Since that Body is not functioning in a proper manner conforming to the financial restraints expected of that Body petitioner has approached this Court praying for holding an inquiry into its affairs. When the Public body is not functioning in a proper manner any member of the public can take up that cause for protecting the interest of the public. He need not have any personal grievance nor should there be any infringement of his fundamental right for moving this Court. When the Public body is not functioning in a proper manner any member of the public can take up that cause for protecting the interest of the public. He need not have any personal grievance nor should there be any infringement of his fundamental right for moving this Court. Viewed in this light petitioner has placed financial irregularities committed by the board before this Court and prays for ordering an inquiry into it. That action on the part of the petitioner cannot be faulted on the ground that he has not been personally affected by the misdeeds of the Board. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention raised by the Board for this petition to be dismissed as not maintainable. ( 9 ) CHAPTER IX of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981, envisages all pervading supervision of its affairs by the Government of Gujarat. Under Sec. 92 of the Act, the board is enjoined to submit to the Government every year detailed report of the administration for the preceding year. Under Sec. 93 of the Act, Board is to submit statement of its income and expenditure in the form suggested by the Government. A copy of that statement should be kept open for inspection by the public. This provision contained in Sec. 93 (2) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the affairs of the Board relating to its income and expenditure should be an open document accessible to the public. Any member of the public who finds something fishy can take up the cause for rectifying the defects. Petitioners attempt in moving this Court can be traced to that right of his which is available under Sec. 93 (2) of the Act. ( 10 ) RESPONDENTS have no case that the Board had been submitting the statement of its income and expenditure to the Government and was making it available for inspection by the public. Since the Board and the State Government have failed to carry out the above statutory obligation, we direct the Government to call for proper statements of the Boards income and expenditure for the past financial years and to make them available to the public for inspection. This statutory duty must be carried out by the Government and the board as expeditiously as possible. This statutory duty must be carried out by the Government and the board as expeditiously as possible. Since the Government is having power to examine and scrutinise the statements of income and expenditure of the Board, we do not think it necessary to order any inquiry into the same by any other authority, including the Central bureau of Investigation. ( 11 ) IN view of what has been stated above, we allow this petition and direct the State government to cause an inspection of the accounts of the Gujarat Maritime Board relating to its income and expenditure. This must be done as expeditiously as possible. .