Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1565 (PAT)

Mahadeo Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2007-09-24

J.N.BHATT, KISHORE K.MANDAL

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the report of the Courts Commissioner, specially, appointed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to submit the status of the disputed site in order to appreciate the merits of the grievance raised in the petition. The report has been placed by the Courts Commissioner, Registrar (Admn.) of this Court, on the last date. 2. Apart from the versions and the affidavit of the respondent-I.O.C, the Courts Commissioner report is very clear. We have considered the record including the compliance report of the Courts Commissioner-Registrar (Admn.) of this Court and we find, personally, that there appears to be no any existence of the grievances, which came to be voiced in this petition. 3. Therefore, keeping in mind the celebrated principles and parameters of doctrines of the Public Interest Litigation, as well as, the material placed on the record, we are satisfied that the present petition is without any substance and deserves to be thrown overboard. Nobody has right to waste the public time, much less, Courts time without verifying genuineness of the allegation. 4. We, therefore, are left with no alternative but to raise our hands in helplessness and to dismiss the petition at the admission stage after hearing the parties and considering the documents. 5. Let it be mentioned that pursuant to our earlier order the Registrar (Amdn.), being the Courts Commissioner, has placed on record the expenditure report alongwith supporting cash memo and receipt amounting to Rs. 5503/- incurred for visiting the site from morning to late evening for the purpose of local inspection and the status of the allegations, be- sides the fees to be paid to the Commissioner and the Officer accompanied to him, which is to be decided by this Court. The respondent-l.O.C. had been given direction by this Court to deposit initially Rs. 15,000/- towards anticipated expenditure for visit and videography, as well as, status report. It is, therefore, now directed, the Registry of this Court shall pay the following amounts itemized here as under: 6. The aforesaid expenditure incurred by the Registrar (Admn.), as well as, one Officer Sri Arun Kr. Choudhary (Court Master) seems to be quite reasonable. Therefore, the Registrar (Admn.) shall be paid the said amount as per the prevalent Rules. 7. The amount of Rs. The aforesaid expenditure incurred by the Registrar (Admn.), as well as, one Officer Sri Arun Kr. Choudhary (Court Master) seems to be quite reasonable. Therefore, the Registrar (Admn.) shall be paid the said amount as per the prevalent Rules. 7. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the Courts Commissioner-Registrar (Admn.) of this Court by way of fee for the work done as directed by this Court beyond the Court hours at a different place in Bhojpur district. 8. The amount of Rs. 3500/- shall be paid to Sri Arun Kr. Choudhary (Court Master). 9. The remaining amount, which is less than Rs. 2,000/-, is directed to be disbursed by the Registrar (Admn.) to the other personnel accompanied, like, Stenographer, Orderly and Bodyguard, appropriately, in exercise of the discretionary power keeping in mind the quantum of work done by such persons. Therefore, the Registry shall pay the full amount. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we painfully but dutifully dismiss the Public Interest Litigation.