JUDGMENT (A.M.Sapre, CJ.) Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M. Borah, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the private respondents. By order dated 7.8.2012, this Court was pleased to pass following order entertaining this PIL under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the writ petitioner against the respondents. The order dated 7.8.2012, reads as under : “This petition has been filed by way of PIL alleging misappropriation of public money. It is alleged that works have not been allotted by publishing NIT and following other mandatory tender process as stipulated under the Special Plan Assistance (SPA) for schemes of the Central Government. The detail project reports (DPR) have been prepared without any architectural plan. Funds allotted are also not utilized by following the mandatory procedure. Benefits have been given to kith and kin of Minister Sri Atum Welly and undue payment has been made to M/s GYT Enterprises, Seppa; M/s H.N. Blue Hills Enterprises and M/s M.W. Enterprises. Mrs. Meni Welly, wife of a Minister has been given benefits by way of misuse of power. Though we find that the material particulars in support of the allegations are not adequate and the credentials of the petitioners who claim to be acting in public interest may not be clearly established, such serious allegations need to be looked into at some forum, particularly the allegations whether the work is being given to the relatives of the Minister and whether due procedure is being followed for execution of the public projects at pubic costs. For this purpose, issue notice to Respondent no.1. By way of precaution, we substitute the petitioners by the Court on its own motion. The Registry may correct the cause title and appoint an amicus. Ms. M. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1. We direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to look into the allegations and give a report to this Court within three months. List for further consideration on 27th November, 2012.” The matter was then taken up on 2.5.2013 when another order was passed after quoting the previous order dated 7.8.2012. We direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to look into the allegations and give a report to this Court within three months. List for further consideration on 27th November, 2012.” The matter was then taken up on 2.5.2013 when another order was passed after quoting the previous order dated 7.8.2012. We consider it apposite to quote herein the relevant part of the order dated 2.5.2013, which reads as under : “An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh stating that prima facie case was made out showing procedural lapses on the part of the authorities of the Public Works Department and serious note has been taken by the State in respect of discrepancies and action has been initiated to fix responsibility for the lapses. Direction has also been issued that due procedure be followed for execution of the projects and disbursement of payment be made after assessing quality and quantity of the work executed. The State is proposing to take further steps in the matter. In view of above, we direct that further follow-up action be taken and monitored by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The same be completed as far as possible within three months from today and report of the action taken be furnished to this Court before the next date.” It is not in dispute that consequent upon the passing of the aforementioned two orders, the State of Arunachal Pradesh vide their order dated 8th February, 2013 has set up an enquiry by appointing Smti Garima Gupta, IAS, Secretary, Cooperation, Labour & Employment, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and directed her to submit a report to the Chief Secretary on the issue mentioned in the order of her appointment. The Enquiry Officer – Smti Garima Gupta, IAS, accordingly held an inquiry and submitted the report dated 18.3.2013 suggesting action in the matter. The proposed action to be taken against certain persons and also on certain specific issues to bring the cases to its logical conclusion as suggested in the report are these : “Proposed Action : There is a prima facie evidence of misappropriation of government funds and falsification of records. The proposed action to be taken against certain persons and also on certain specific issues to bring the cases to its logical conclusion as suggested in the report are these : “Proposed Action : There is a prima facie evidence of misappropriation of government funds and falsification of records. Hence, a detail investigation needs to be carried out by a fair, independent organization which should investigate the following aspects besides other things : a) The duplicity in the works and projects sanctioned under SPA 2010-11. b) That if the contractors who carried out the work contracts and those who were awarded the tenders were the same firms or different. c) The role of individual government officials in the above and the criminal misappropriation of funds. d) A technical committee should be constituted to verify the following, who would conduct site inspections to verify the following- whether the technical specifications specified in the DPR have been met or not. whether the quality of the work executed has been as per specifications.” Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh fairly submits that the Government has already initiated the departmental inquiry and have taken other steps as proposed in the enquiry report but its conclusion is still awaited. Be that as it may, we hereby direct the State of Arunachal Pradesh and its concern authorities who are seized of the issues under consideration as proposed in the inquiry to act upon the proposed action suggested by the enquiry officer in her report dated 18.3.2013, quoted above, and not completed so far then bring the cases to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Needless to observe, the State shall make sincere endeavor to ensure implementation of the suggestion given by the enquiry officer and take action accordingly against every one if found guilty in accordance with law keeping in view the larger public interest of State and State largess without being influenced by any extraneous consideration. We hope that action shall be brought to its logical conclusion expeditiously and preferable within a period of six months from today as an outer limit. It is with these observations and direction, we dispose of this public interest litigation finally. However, all parties concerned are at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies as may be available to them in law, if occasion so arises in future. It is with these observations and direction, we dispose of this public interest litigation finally. However, all parties concerned are at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies as may be available to them in law, if occasion so arises in future. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary for ensuring compliance of the order. No cost.