Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3644 (ALL)

Aslam Ahmad Siddiqui v. State of U. P.

2014-12-05

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. An earlier petition1 was filed in the public interest by the petitioner. The nature of the grievance was that though an audit had been ordered by the Chief Account Auditor in September 2012 of a Gram Panchayat, no action had been taken. On 27 February 2014 the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms: "An audit was ordered by the Chief Account Auditor on 25 September 2012 of the Gram Panchayat, village Masoodpur, Shadiabad, District Ghazipur. The grievance is, however, that until date no action has been taken by the District Account Auditor, Ghazipur. We, hence, order and direct that unless the Chief Account Auditor has revoked or modified his order dated 25 September 2012, he shall enforce the direction which has already been issued by him and take necessary steps for compliance on expeditious basis. We, accordingly, direct the District Account Officer, Ghazipur to submit, within a period of two weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, a report to the Chief Account Auditor of the action which was taken on his directions dated 25 September 2012. The Chief Account Auditor shall now ensure compliance as directed above expeditiously. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of." 2. Subsequently, a contempt application2 was taken out which was disposed of on 22 August 2014 with a positive direction for securing compliance. In pursuance thereof, from the record it appears that an audit has already been conducted by a three-Member team and the audit report has been submitted to the District Panchayat Raj Officer and to the District Magistrate. 3. The purpose of a PIL in the present case and the earlier order of the Court was to activate an inactive State administrative machinery. That purpose has been achieved as is evident from the fact that an audit has been completed and the report has been forwarded to the competent officers for appropriate action. Hence, it is not appropriate for the Court now to entertain a further petition in the public interest on the same subject since there is nothing to indicate that appropriate action would not be pursued in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.