Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 214 (ALL)

Braj Bhusan Dubey v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-01-17

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2013
Dilip Gupta, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is a Member of Zila Panchayat, Ghazipur. He has preferred this writ petition as a public interest litigation for raising a grievance against inclusion of some items of work in a tender notice issued by the Zila Panchayat and published in the newspapers on 19th December, 2012. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, four works included in the tender notice are non-existent and petitioner is also not aware of existence of any Abdul Hamid Park in village Bara although development of such park is included as one of the works in the tender notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that some of the works shown in the tender notice are exaggerated with a view to misuse public fund. Learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat, Ghazipur has produced before us reports and other materials to show that allegations made by the petitioner was inquired into and the authorities have found no merit in the allegations. Some photographs have also been shown in support of the plea that the works exist and are required to be completed in public interest. Learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat has assured this Court that a copy of the reports and other materials shown to the Court shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of the day. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to issue any positive directions in public interest at this juncture. The respondents and concerned authorities have already taken notice of issues raised by the petitioner and are satisfied that the issues are misconceived. Any further action in such matters may be taken if the actual work is found to be fictitious and public money is mis-utilized. Hence, the public interest litigation is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case, he is dissatisfied with the actual works or if there is any misappropriation of public fund, he may set law into motion in accordance with the procedure prescribed. _____________