Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 9 (JHR)

Bholendra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-05

D.N.PATEL, PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
Judgment : Per D.N. Patel, J 1) This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers: - (i) Making enquiry and further taking legal action(s) against all those concerning authorities particularly respondent No.8, Sushil Kumar Rai, and respondent No.9, Ashok Kumar Sharma, who found to be involved in the practice of corruption within the HRD Department, Government of Jharkhand, for the matter of theft of 85,000 copies of Matric Examination, 2013 of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Namkuna, Ranchi from the premises of the Jamshedpur High School, Jamshedpur. (ii) Further making enquiry and taking legal action(s) against all those concerned authorities who are involved in the practice of corruption in the name of construction work of the School building of the Jamshedpur High School. (iii) Issuing notice to the Respondent No.4-4 for the matter of Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi P.E. No.31/12 vide dated 08.11.2012 which has been started against respondent No.-9, Ashok Kumar Sharma, in a matter of having crores of immovable properties which is more than his source of income but unfortunately it has been put on the dust bin by the concerned authorities for some ulterior motive. (iv) Further making enquiry of the corrupt practice of the respondent No.-9, Ashok Kumar Sharma, who always used to stop the payment of his subordinate teachers working under him in the district of his posting only for corrupt practice and for his some ulterior motive. (v) Further taking legal action against the Respondent No.-9, Ashok Kumar Sharma, who always came back to his original position, before the maturity of the period, at Jamshedpur. (vi) For passing an immediate order of suspension of the Respondent No.-9, Ashok Kumar Sharma, and further making enquiry against him and also taking legal action, including criminal proceeding, for his corrupt practices. 2) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have entered into corrupt practices and has committed theft of answer sheet of 85000 student of Matric examination and, therefore, he is praying for initiating action against respondent Nos.8 and 9. 3) We have heard counsel for the respondents-State who has submitted that this is not a Public interest Litigation at all. In fact, looking to the prayer No.1(i), paragraph 25 to be read with paragraph 28, this is absolutely a Private Interest Litigation. 3) We have heard counsel for the respondents-State who has submitted that this is not a Public interest Litigation at all. In fact, looking to the prayer No.1(i), paragraph 25 to be read with paragraph 28, this is absolutely a Private Interest Litigation. As the salary of this petitioner was stopped by the respondent No.9, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. Even otherwise also, there is a prayer to initiate action against respondent Nos.8 and 9, therefore also, this is not a Public interest Litigation as he has ventilated several grievance against respondent Nos.8 and 9 as stated in paragraph 25. Looking to the totality of the circumstances, this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. Hence, this writ petition may be dismissed with cost. 4) Having heard both sides and the prayers of this writ petition, it appears that the petitioner is seeking proceedings against respondent Nos.8 and 9 for criminal action to be taken as they have entered into corrupt practices for the theft of 85000 originals of answer-sheets of matric examination, 2013 conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. 5) Looking to the allegation levelled in this writ petition and also looking to paragraphs 25 and 28 and also the annexures to this writ petition, it appears that this is a Private Interest Litigation especially against respondent Nos.8 and 9. Moreover, nothing is mentioned in the writ petition suggestive of the fact that how this petitioner is putting allegation of theft of 85000 originals of matric examination answer sheets. This petitioner has no personal knowledge at all of these types of facts. Moreover, looking to the affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it appears that Vigilance Bureau has already registered preliminary enquiry Nos.31 and 12 against respondent Nos.8 and 9 and it has been stated that the allegations are baseless about disproportionate assets. There is no rejoinder affidavit of this counter affidavit. Looking to these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. Hence, this is not a Public interest Litigation, on the contrary, it is a Private Interest litigation and this Public interest Litigation is hereby dismissed.