Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 501 (MP)

Satyabhan Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2014-05-01

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
Judgment Heard. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have prayed the following reliefs :- “(1) That, the State Government and its higher authorities may kindly be directed to take immediate steps for controlling and detecting the use of inferior quality of material in construction of said Upper Kaketo Dam. (2) That, the State Government and its higher authorities may kindly be directed to constitute a monitoring authority headed by Secretary or Commissioner, Division Chambal Morena or Gwalior and by other competent authority. (3) That, the CBI or any other independent Government agency may kindly be directed to conduct the inquiry and submit the inquiry report in stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court. (4) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed the competent police authorities to take legal action against erring officers, Govt. Servant and Managing Director of construction company and its associates/employees who found involved in this inferior construction and corrupt practice and misappropriation of public fund in the construction of the said Upper Kaketo Dam. (5) That the State authorities concerned may kindly be directed to complete the construction of the Dam according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, guideline fix in the Upper Kaketo Dam as approved by the State Govt. and according to the provisions framed under MPPWD Manual which is applicable to the construction work of Water Resources Department as soon as possible so that villagers and people residing in city Gwalior would not suffer. (6) That, any other relief for doing justice by issuance of writ order or direction in the matter may kindly be issued in favour of public at large. Cost may kindly be awarded.” 2. The construction of upper Kaketo Dam has already been completed. The petitioners pleaded that there were irregularities and illegalities in the construction of the Dam and inferior material was used and some employees were in corrupt practice. For the aforesaid irregularities, the petitioners prayed a relief that an enquiry be ordered by this court. 3. Division Bench of this court in Kanhaiyalal Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R.[2011] M.P., 124 has held as under in regard to power of the court to issue directions against a public officer in the matter of financial irregularities :- “6. 3. Division Bench of this court in Kanhaiyalal Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R.[2011] M.P., 124 has held as under in regard to power of the court to issue directions against a public officer in the matter of financial irregularities :- “6. Thus, from perusal of the provisions of the Act it is graphically clear that the Act has been enacted with the object to investigate cases of corruption in public life and provides for an inbuilt mechanism in respect of complaint with regard to corruption by an officer appointed to a public service or post in connection with affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the provisions of the Act are a complete Code in itself and provide a remedy to an aggrieved person, he should at the first instance resort to the remedy provided to him under the Act. In such a case the public interest litigation should not be entertained. 7. The apex court in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another Vs. C.K.Rajan and others, (2003) 7 SCC 546 , wherein the allegations were made regarding mismanagement of the affairs of the Guruvayoor temple by a devotee, found that the affairs of the temple are governed by the provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, wherein forums have been created by ventilating the grievances of the affected persons. In that backdrop it was observed in para 60 of the judgment that ordinarily, therefore, such forums should be moved at the first instance. It was further held that the State Government should be asked to look into the grievances of the aggrieved devotees, both as parents patriae as also in discharge of its statutory duties. 8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court facts of the case in hand may be examined. The allegations made by the petitioner required to be enquired into in the appropriate forum, wherein detailed enquiry would be conducted as per provisions prescribed in the Act and an opportunity of hearing would be afforded to the respondent no.5. Therefore, the petitioner should avail the remedy provided under the Act. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has remedy to agitate his grievance under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner should avail the remedy provided under the Act. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has remedy to agitate his grievance under the provisions of the Act. We have no doubt that in the event the petitioner approachers the appropriate authority, as indicated above, by making complaint as per the prescribed procedure within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same would be examined and necessary action would be taken in accordance with law expeditiously.” 4. Division Bench has clearly held that there is a remedy provided to the persons under the provisions of M.P.Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act of 1981') entertaining the grievance in regard to financial irregularities committed by the public officers, hence, the court in PIL ordinarily should not issue directions in this regard. 5. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the observations that the petitioners are at liberty to lodge a complaint before the Lokayukta under the provisions of Act of 1981 in accordance with law and if any complaint be lodged, the authority may consider the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs.