Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 212 (PAT)

Krishna Ballabh Welfare Society, through its Secretary v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi

2023-02-15

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD

body2023
JUDGMENT : Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. The petitioner claims to be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for brevity ‘the Act’). It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that one of the founder members, namely, Krishna Ballabh Prasad, has been serving whole life with an organization, which was started in the year 1960. There is reference to a piece of land, which was made available for running the organization in 1960, and a building constructed thereon for taking up the cause of social justice. It has further been stated after the death of said Krishna Ballabh Prasad, the founder members resolved to get the society registered under the Act, as a non-profit organization. There is further reference to construction of a building by the organization, on the land, which the organization had acquired. 2. In the present writ application, the petitioner is seeking direction to give approval of the scheme of Atal Vayo Abhyuday Yojana (AVYAY) for the Village-Jhakatiya Kala, in the District of Gaya. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. In the counter affidavit, sworn by the Assistant Director, District Social Security Cell, Gaya, it has been stated that the petitioner's-organization was inspected on 26-03-2022 by the Assistant Director, District Social Security Cell, Gaya, and it has been found that the rented building of the organization was neither completed nor plastered. Upon physical verification, a report was submitted and the organization was not found fit to run any old age home under the said Scheme. 4. In our considered view, the petitioner cannot maintain the present Public Interest Litigation to question the denial of grant by the State-respondent, which the petitioner had claimed under the Scheme. This Public Interest Litigation is thoroughly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.