Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 September, 2015
WP-1689-2015
(MOHANLAL MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
07-09-2015
Petitioner in person.
Shri Piyush jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
The petitioner who appears in person has filed this petition Pro bono publico, inter alia, contending that respondent No.5 Shri Dhanushdhari Mishra who is incharge Lamps Manager in the Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Papaoundh, Tehsil Beohari, District Shahdol has committed various illegalities, misappropriation and defalcation in the discharge of his duties.
As a result he who was appointed in the year 1993 as a Assistant Clerk on a honorarium of Rs.900/- per month is today the owner of properties worth lacs of rupees both movable and immovable as detailed in para 3.3 of the writ petition. In para 3.3 of the writ petition more than 16 instances of alleged corruption and misappropriation of assets beyond his known source of income are indicated against respondent No.5 and the grievance of the petitioner is that even though he has filed complaints and representation to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal the General Manager, Co-operative Bank, Shahdol, Collector and authorities of Special Police Establishment, Lokayut Bhopal no action has been taken.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner and on going through the material available on record, we find that the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to inaction on his complaints and representations made against the activities of respondent No.5. That being so, for the present without entering into the controversy on merit and without observing or making any comments on the allegations made by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file the certified copy of this order along with the relevant documents before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhopal and the office of the the Lokayukt which shall take cognizance of the matter pertaining to the district in question where respondent No.5 is working and on the same being done the said authorities are requested to look into the complaint of the petitioner and to proceed in the matter of complaint made in accordance to law.
Needless to emphasize that in case within a period of 6 months from the date of filing of the order, no action is taken by these authorities, the petitioner shall be at liberty to re-agitate the matter afresh in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (S.K. SETH)
JUDGE JUDGE