Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malkeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
(1) R.P.NO.921/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 921 of 2023
MALKEET SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari learned Government Advocate
for the respondents/State.
Shri Yash Sharma learned counsel for the respondent -EOW.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner filed the present Review Petition seeking a review of the order dt.03.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.8487/2023 thereby dismissing the writ petition. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 8/17/2024 6:17:32 PM (2) R.P.NO.921/2023
2. The petitioner being a pro bono filed Writ Petition No.8487/2023 (PIL) highlighting corruption and misappropriation of public funds at the hands of a few individuals.
3. According to the petitioner, initially the estimate of Rs.83/- Crore was prepared in respect of losses that occurred due to the heavy rains in the rainy season of 2021. After some time, again a fresh estimate of Rs.571/- crore was sent to the competent authority in order to fetch the extra amount. On a complaint made by the petitioner, vide order dt.27.12.2022, Chief Engineer Bodhi, Water Resources Department, Bhopal was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who vide order dt. 10.01.2023 constituted a committee for the aforesaid enquiry. The committee has not submitted any report for want of documents. The EOW has taken up the matter based on complaint dt.29.08.2022. The complaint was handed over to Shri Yashwant Goyal, Inspector, Economic Offence Wing Unit at Gwalior. After making a detailed enquiry, a closure (Nastibaddh) report was submitted. According to the petitioner, when the committee was constituted, then the committee ought to have submitted the report.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 8/17/2024 6:17:32 PM (3) R.P.NO.921/2023
5. The entire petition is based on Annexures P/2 and P/3. Both are unsigned documents not received under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner has not disclosed as to from which source he received this information. These are only photographs taken through mobile and printed out which have been filed declaring as true copies of the originals. Neither the petitioner nor his lawyer has seen the original documents before declaring the same as a true copy of the original. On such documents, no PIL can be entertained. Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any grounds to entertain this Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 8/17/2024
6:17:32 PM