JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed on behalf of the society through its president. The society was registered vide registration No.05/2005. Case of the society, in a nutshell, is that respondent No.2 has not released additional amount of Rs. seven lakhs for the construction of Lohana Chowki to Jag-Kelvi road. 2. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo submitted that the society has already undertaken construction of the road and a sum of Rs. five lakhs was spent and the same was verified by the Block Development Officer vide Annexure P-1. He then argued that respondent No.2 is bound to release the amount for the construction of remaining road. 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner-society has no locus standi to file the present petition. He then argued that the roads in the State are constructed strictly by the Governmental agencies. He also argued that the action of Block Development Officer to release a sum of Rs. five lakhs to the petitioner-society initially was bad in law. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that the Advisor Planning has released a sum of Rs. five lakhs on 16.12.2006 for the construction of road in question. This amount was released by the Deputy Commissioner, i.e. respondent No.2 on 26.12.2006 to the Block Development Officer, Chopal. The Block Development Officer, Chopal released this amount to the petitioner-society. The amount ought to have been released to the Gram Panchayat and not to the petitioner-society, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Block Development Officer has submitted utilization-cum-completion certificate vide Annexure P-1. It has further come in the reply that the funds were not available with the Deputy Commissioner, as such, Advisor Planning was requested to provide additional amount on 13.3.2008. The Advisor Planning informed the Deputy Commissioner on 31.3.2008 that the funds for pending scheme could not be provided due to non-available of savings and finalisation of SDGs. The Gram Panchayat, Gorli Marawag was also informed that the additional funds could not be provided as asked for. It was also insisted upon that the work be got executed under NREGA. During 2008-09, Social Justice and Empowerment Department allocated Rs. The Gram Panchayat, Gorli Marawag was also informed that the additional funds could not be provided as asked for. It was also insisted upon that the work be got executed under NREGA. During 2008-09, Social Justice and Empowerment Department allocated Rs. five lakhs under Scheduled Caste Component Plan in the budget and allocated funds to the Executive Engineer, HPWD Division, Chopal. The Gram Panchayat, Gorli Marawag has also passed a resolution on 11.11.2009 vide Annexure R-1 that it is not constructing the road and in fact the same is being constructed by the HPPWD, Chopal Division. 6. The Court is of the considered view that the petitioner-society has no locus standi to file the present petition. The Governmental funds are channelized and utilised either by the Government functionaries/agencies directly or through the respective Gram Panchayats. It has come in the reply that the Block Development Officer has released the amount to the society though in normal circumstances, the work was to be got executed through the agency of Gram Panchayat. How the governmental funds have been converted to the private society has not been explained in the reply. The Block Development Officer had no jurisdiction or authority to divert the Governmental funds to the petitioner-society. The Court deprecates the functioning of the Block Development Officer, who is responsible for diversion of the Government funds. The road in question is being constructed by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. The Gram Panchayat has also passed the resolution on 11.11.2009 that the road in question is being constructed by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. 7. Respondent-State was directed to apprise the Court whether the funds are being made available for the construction of this road or not. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, on the basis of instructions imparted to him by Shri Shyam Singh, Legal Assistant, D.C. Office Shimla, submits that a sum of Rs. Five lakhs already stood remitted to the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Chopal Division for the construction of remaining road. Respondent-State is directed not to make available funds for private person like the petitioner society. There is a procedure the manner in which revenue is generated and utilised with accountability. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made herein above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. There is a procedure the manner in which revenue is generated and utilised with accountability. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made herein above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. However, in the interest of justice, respondent-State is directed to get the road completed within a period of six months out of the funds, which now have been made available to the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Chopal. Respondent-State is also directed to hold inquiry why the Government funds have been diverted by the Block Development Officer to the petitioner-society in the year 2006 and complete the same within a period of three months. No costs.