Allahabad High Court
Ravi Karan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Panchayat Raj & ... on 2 April, 2010
Author: Amitava Lala
Bench: Amitava Lala
A.F.R.
Chief Justice's Court
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14438 of 2010
Ravi Karan Singh .............. Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and Others. ................ Respondents.
Present:
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala, ACJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok
Srivastava, J.)
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. C.B. Yadav, Senior
Advocate.
: Mr. Birendra Singh.
For the Respondents : Mr. K.R. Sirohi, Senior
Advocate.
: Mr. S.S. Misra.
: Mr. Ramanand Pandey,
Standing Counsel.
---------
Amitava Lala, ACJ.- Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.
This writ petition in the form of public interest litigation is placed before us on the basis of an order of Division Bench of this Court dated 25.03.2010, in which it has been held that in view of the nature of the relief and the complaint, this Court is of the view that matter is cognizable by the Bench hearing the public interest litigation matter. Accordingly, the office was directed to obtain fresh report and put up the matter as fresh, if possible, on 29.03.2010 before appropriate Bench. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us.
2
The petitioner's contention is that power of the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Fatehpur has been ceased due to serious financial irregularities during the course of distribution of pumping sets to the weaker sections of the society. A Committee of three Members was formed by the State Government for distribution of pumping sets and the same were distributed to those persons, who are closely related with the Members of the Committee i.e. brother, father and uncle. In such circumstances, if the financial and administrative powers are given to the said Committee then again the same thing will happen, therefore, there is every possibility of similar irregularities. The matter has been strongly opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Committee and also by the State about the maintainability and merit of this writ petition. If we categorically record what are their conjoint submissions, the same are to the effect that paragraph nos. 4 and 11 of the writ petition say that the petitioner is a Registered Contractor of the Zila Panchayat, Fatehpur, therefore, he cannot be a person regarded as non-interested person in this public interest litigation. It has been further contended that as because the tenders were not allotted to him, he has taken all such pleas. There is an interim order of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.58326 of 2009 (Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others), which has been filed by the same writ petitioner as herein. He urged thereunder by saying that he has applied for renewal of the tenure of contract but since the financial and administrative power of the President of the Zila Panchayat, Fatehpur has been ceased and Committee has been appointed, Committee cannot invite tenders for making fresh contracts. On that basis, the petitioner has already obtained an interim order in the said writ petition. In case there is any violation, it is open to the petitioner to file 3 application for contempt.
So far as the power of the Chairman is concerned, in a connected matter, the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the order dated 09.03.2010 passed in Misc. Bench No.1858 of 2010 (Smt. Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) has held that the enquiry report has already been submitted on 2.02.2010, therefore, there is no reason for not taking an early decision and by disposing of the said writ petition, directed that appropriate decision shall be taken by the State Government within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Hence, this Committee cannot continue indefinitely, and, the work of the Committee is going to expire very shortly and the appropriate decision is to be taken by the authority concerned under the orders of the Court and as such, there is no need to interfere with the work of the Committee nor there is any justification to take any step against any Member of the Committee in case of any fault.
According to us, it is an undisputed fact that all the three Members are related with each other but it is also to be apprised that in some of the cases when the relatives have become successful in franchise and become part of the body, without any basis it cannot be held that as because they have the blood relation, they will take the similar view and they will cause the similar mistake. So far as the question of public interest litigation is concerned, as pointed out by the petitioner under Section 20 (3)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, we have to hold and say that raising issue by public interest litigation cannot be said to be identical without considering the cause of litigation. Here, the cause of litigation is the interest put forward for work, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be non- 4 interested person but most interested person. Having so, the public interest litigation has been filed on his part particularly.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this public interest litigation cannot be held to be maintainable, hence we are not interested to convert the same in the form of public interest litigation. However, since the public interest litigation has not been initiated by the petitioner but his effort to this is under the order of the Division Bench, we do not want to impose any cost and, therefore, the same is dismissed without imposing any cost but with a note that in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in JT 2010 (1) SC 329 (State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others) each and everybody should be careful while making similar writ petitions. We hope and trust that any Court, before referring any matter holding a view that the same is in the nature of public interest litigation, should be careful and what should be done is that if the cause of the writ petition appears to be in the nature of public interest litigation dismiss the same with liberty to file public interest litigation afresh by the appropriate persons before the appropriate Court.
However, it is open to the State Government to consider the cause on the basis of the allegations, if any, independently but not on the direction of the Court.
(Justice Amitava Lala, ACJ) I agree (Justice Ashok Srivastava) Date : 02.04.2010 VMA