Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16001 of 2021 Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Tiwari And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed the following prayers that this Court may issue:
"I) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to provide the money of the petitioners with interest within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
II) Any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case."
Can a money decree be passed by this Court for the above following reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the State has not at all involved in the matter. If the petitioners have invested money under the scheme Bid and Hot Deals and they have been duped, should the government be held responsible for the same. Such writ petition is totally misconceived.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, can this Court pass such orders directing the State Government to pay petitioners who according to them have been duped by some private persons and against whom the petitioners have filed criminal complaint. This writ petition should not have been brought to this Court as the same is not maintainable. Whether the monies are due and payable or not according to the learned Standing Counsel for the State is a matter between petitioners and respondent No.4 to 10. The Directorate of Enforcement and Economic Offence Wing namely respondent No.3 & 2 respectively cannot be directed to make any payment as it is not they who have duped to the petitioners.
The matters which are settled are between the petitioners and the private respondents. The State has no role to play in payment of amount.
This petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
At the beginning, we have requested the counsel for the petitioners to withdraw this petition but he is insisted that we should hear him and that he would delete the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 who were private respondents and claims relief against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 DKS