Court No. - 4
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2092 of 2019 Petitioner :- Brijpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shambhavi Nandan
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6 and Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned Counsel for respondent nos.7 to 9.
Present public interest litigation has been filed seeking a direction upon State-authorities to recover Rs.53,50,000/- from respondent no.7 and Rs.9,00,000/- from respondent no.8 being public money.
Facts in brief are that Mahendra Pratap Singh and Vishal Singh were given financial assistance for establishing primary school in name of Vishal Gyan Deep Primary School, Gothav , Azamgarh between the year 2008-13. This money was not utilized by respondents as alleged by petitioner, as such a complaint was filed by father of petitioner before the Chief Development Officer, Azamgarh, who in turn directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh to submit his report.
It appears that father of petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation No.64847 of 2013 (Ram Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), in which a direction was issued on 27.11.2013 directing respondent no.4 to conclude the inquiry expeditiously. It appears that a Contempt Application (Civil) No.3629 of 2014 (Ram Narayan Singh Vs. Mr. Shiv Kumar Pandey) was filed, however the same was dismissed on 8.7.2014.
Inquiry report was submitted by respondent no.4 to the Chief Development Officer, Azamgarh, indicting the respondent nos.7 to 9. It appears that the first information report was also lodged against the respondent nos.7 to 9.
Thereafter, on 2.2.2015, respondent no.2 issued a recovery citation against Mahendra Prasad Singh, Manager of the institution in question for recovery of Rs.53,50,000/- and on the same day, another recovery citation of Rs.9,000,00/- was issued against Vishal Kumar Singh. Both the recovery citations were challenged before this Court through Writ C No.18998 of 2015 and Writ C No.19000 of 2015. On 22.11.2016, which were dismissed.
It has been contended by petitioner that during the pendency of the writ proceedings, his father died, and now he is pursuing the said matter.
Learned Standing Counsel produced instructions which are in the form of a written narration before us. We have perused the instructions. In para 5, it is stated that after dismissal of writ petitions filed by the respondent nos.7 to 9, Tehsildar, Nizamabad, issued a recovery citation against the respondent nos.7 to 9 on 14.2.2019 for recovering the amounts due against them.
Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.7 to 9 has stated that respondent nos.7 to 9 have challenged the said recovery citation before this Court and matter is posted for hearing on 28.11.2019. It has further been contended that this is not a public interest litigation as it is a dispute between respondent nos.4 to 7 and the State. Further, father of petitioner was a complainant, and once the complaint was entertained and the State-authorities acted thereon, the petitioner has no further role to play in the matter.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
One thing which clearly emerges from the perusal of the facts of the case is that the public interest litigation at the instance of petitioner is not maintainable, as his father had lodged a complaint against respondent nos.7 to 9 before the State- authorities, who acted upon the same and proceeded to initiate the proceedings for recovery of the amount in question on the basis of inquiry. Petitioner cannot settle his personal score through public interest litigation, and as State-authorities are pursuing the matter for recovery, we find that no interference is required in the matter. Further, as petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the State functionaries, and the matter is expected to be taken on 28.11.2019, we decline to interfere in this public interest litigation on that count also. However, it will be open to the petitioner to contest the proceedings before the writ court, if so advised.
In view of the above, public interest litigation is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 S. Singh