Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2170 (ALL)

Siya Ram (P. I. L. ) v. Union of India

2014-07-22

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. The petitioner in this petition which is ostensibly filed in the public interest, has sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation in respect of certain allegations made in regard to the funds of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for the village panchayats in district Gonda for 2010 to 2014. 2. Besides stating that the petitioner is a resident of village Retwagarha of District Gonda and a social worker, there is no disclosure in regard to his credentials or his bona fides which is now mandatory in view of the provisions of sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which was inserted following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029. That apart, as the learned Standing Counsel points out during the course of the submissions, the rules framed by the State Government in 2009 under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 contain a specific provision for the redressal of complaints and for an appellate authority. In this view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to issue directions, at the present stage, of the nature sought, particularly since the petitioner has not disclosed his own credentials and has not availed of the remedy available under the rules. 3. The letter dated 30 December 2013 of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gonda, on which reliance has been placeed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not assist the petitioner since all that it refers, is in respect of a social audit. Similarly, the letter dated 25 January 2014 of the District Audit Officer (Annexure-4) merely requires the submission of documents to complete the audit. Neither of these two letters indicates any embezzlement nor has the petitioner made out any prima facie case in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purposes of ordering investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 4. For the years 2007 to 2010, a Division Bench of this Court had, by its judgment dated 31 January 2014, directed an investigation by the CBI and the matter has been monitored by the Division Bench. The present petition relates to the period subsequent thereto. 4. For the years 2007 to 2010, a Division Bench of this Court had, by its judgment dated 31 January 2014, directed an investigation by the CBI and the matter has been monitored by the Division Bench. The present petition relates to the period subsequent thereto. We clarify that we have declined to entertain the petition only on the ground of absence of a proper disclosure and the failure of the petitioner to make out a prima facie case for the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction. 5. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.