Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1711 (ALL)

Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-05-04

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT The petitioner had moved this Court in three previous writ petitions purportedly in public interest, Public Interest Litigation No.28726 of 2014, Writ-C No.26962 of 2014 and Public Interest Litigation No.16863 of 2016. In the first public interest litigation, the following order was passed on 22 May 2014: "In these proceedings, the petitioner seeks an enquiry in regard to alleged misappropriation of funds which were disbursed under the MP/MLA Funds to several Educational Institutions. At this stage, the attention of the Court has been drawn by the petitioner to the effect that on 28 March 2014, the Chief Development Officer, Ballia has directed the constitution of a three member Committee to inquire into the matter and to submit a report. Since a Committee has been constituted to conduct an inquiry, it will not be appropriate for the Court to interfere at the present point in time. However, we would request the Chief Development Officer, Ballia to ensure that his directions are duly observed and that the work of the Committee is expedited in order that appropriate measures can be taken in law, after furnishing to all the affected persons an adequate opportunity of being heard. We expect that this exercise would be completed, preferably within a period of one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition is disposed of." 2. The second writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 15 May 2014 with the following order: "The petitioner alleges that one Yogendra Yadav, who is in possession of only 1.5 decimal land, had with the collusion of the authorities, obtained recognition of six educational institutions. It is an admitted position that a vigilance enquiry has been initiated. We are not satisfied about the credentials or motives of the petitioner in filing the present proceedings. These proceedings are not in the public interest. The petitioner has not made clear before the Court his locus to institute these proceedings. Hence, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when as stated before the Court, a vigilance enquiry has already been initiated. Hence, no further directions are necessary. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 3. Hence, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when as stated before the Court, a vigilance enquiry has already been initiated. Hence, no further directions are necessary. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 3. The third public interest litigation was dismissed as withdrawn, the Court having recorded that several parties have been unnecessarily impleaded and there was a non-joinder of necessary parties. In the meantime, one more public interest litigation was filed by Hansraj Yadav (PIL No.50052 of 2015) in which, the Court recorded the statement of the Chief Development Officer, Ballia that steps have been taken to cancel the recognition of four institutions and for the recovery of amounts paid over under the MP/MLA funds. 4. In the present public interest litigation, a compilation containing instructions made available to the learned Standing Counsel as well as relevant orders and documents have been placed on the record. It indicates that on 25 April 2016, a meeting was held by the Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Rural Development. The Secretary has adverted to the steps which have been taken in the meantime which indicates that the matter is pending further decision. Particularly, having regard to the background of the petitioner who has earlier filed three proceedings before this Court, we are of the view that the ends of justice would not require any further directions by the Court since the Court has been apprised of the steps which have been taken. This is particularly in the light of the fact that serious objections have been raised to the allegations of the petitioner as recorded above in the previous orders passed by this Court. Hence, no further directions are necessary, save and except that the State Government shall immediately pursue the proceedings which have already been initiated with due notice to the affected parties. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.