Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1978 (ALL)

Deeksha Dwivedi v. Union of India Thru' Secy.

2014-07-08

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. In these proceedings the petitioners, who have moved the Court on the basis of a fact finding report under the auspices of the Human Rights Law Network, have sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Kaushambi and to the Block Development Officer, Block Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi to provide daily unemployment allowance to the workmen who had applied for a job and were not provided a job. 2. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the provisions of Section 7 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. Section 19 of the Act empowers the State Government, by framing rules, to determine an appropriate grievance redressal mechanism at the block level and the district level for dealing with any complaint by any person in respect of the implementation of the Scheme and to lay down the procedure for the disposal of such complaints. In pursuance of the Act, the Uttar Pradesh Employment Guarantee Grievance Redressal Mechanism Rules, 2009 have been framed. Under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2009, any citizen or any registered non-governmental institution is entitled to make a complaint under Section 19 of the Act. Rule 4 contemplates that a complaint can be made regarding violation of any provision of the Act. 3. In our view, the complaint which is sought to be espoused on behalf of the petitioners would require a basic verification of facts. Public Interest Litigation must conform to the normal requirements of a writ petition under Article 226 and when a statutory alternate remedy is available, it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition at the first instance without exhaustion of the remedies which are provided. Hence, we leave it open to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as provided in the Rules framed under Section 19 of the Act by invoking the grievance redressal mechanism. Leaving it open to the petitioners to do so, we decline to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.