Jharkhand High Court
Kailash Prasad Son Of Ram Vilas Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 May, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:13790-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 5754 of 2023
---
Kailash Prasad son of Ram Vilas Ram, resident of Mahabir Tola,
Borio Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Borio, District- Sahebganj
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government
of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj
5. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand,
Ranchi
6. The Additional Collector, Sahebganj
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanket Khanna, A.C. to A.A.G.-V
---
Reserved on 29.04.2025 Pronounced on 08.05.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
The present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for directing the respondent no. 5 to investigate the fraudulent payment made under "Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna-Gramin" (PMAY-G) Scheme in Borio Block, District- Sahebganj.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a social activist and he has no personal interest, either directly or, indirectly, and the issue raised by him is of public interest. The petitioner is an elected representative holding post of "Up-Pramukh", Borio Block and he has raised the present issue relating to the persons belonging to "Paharia" Tribes, who are living in thatched houses and the money withdrawn in their name has been misappropriated.
1
2025:JHHC:13790-DB
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed several representations to the respondent authorities regarding blatant illegality being committed in allotment of funds under PMAY-G scheme to the beneficiaries and an enquiry was done in that regard, but the outcome of the same was not made public.
4. It is also submitted that even the persons who are having double storied houses, have also been disbursed funds for construction of houses under PMAY-G scheme. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj (the respondent no. 4) wrote a letter to the Additional Collector, Sahebganj-cum-Senior In- charge Officer, Borio (the respondent no. 6) for submitting inquiry report in connection with the irregularities committed by the Block Development Officer, Borio in selection of the beneficiaries under the PMAY-G scheme, however the inquiry report has not been submitted. Though on 09.06.2023, the Secretariat of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand, also took note of the complaint made by the petitioner and wrote a letter to the respondent no. 3 for taking appropriate action in this regard, however no action was taken.
5. It is further urged that the local newspapers highlighted the irregularities committed in disbursement of fund under PMAY-G Scheme mentioning that despite withdrawal of money under that scheme by a middle man, the house of one Babloo Paharia was not constructed and he was living in a thatched house.
6. It is also argued that PMAY-G scheme is a scheme of Central Government meant for constructing houses for poor, but the concerned Block Development Officer has implemented the 2 2025:JHHC:13790-DB scheme merely on paper and the actual beneficiary families are constrained to stay in thatched houses even after withdrawal of entire fund.
7. It is further submitted that several complaints were made by different persons including the petitioner to the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka which were redirected to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj vide letter no. 153 dated 26.06.2023 to take further actions. Having not taken any positive step in this regard, the petitioner has been compelled to prefer the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has failed to bring on record sufficient evidence even to prima facie establish the allegation made in the writ petition and as such, the same filed in the form of a PIL is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10. Before coming to the merit of the contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 wherein it has been held as under: -
"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest 3 2025:JHHC:13790-DB litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."
11. Thus, before entertaining a PIL, the Court has to prima facie satisfy itself regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition.
12. In the present case, the petitioner has not brought on record sufficient material in support of the aforesaid allegation so as to prima facie satisfy this Court regarding correctness of the same. 4
2025:JHHC:13790-DB
13. Even if the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that one Babloo Paharia son of Sonam Panharia - actual beneficiary of the scheme, is living in a thatched house with his family even after withdrawal of fund under PMAY-G scheme, is taken to be true, the said single instance cannot be a ground to file public interest litigation. It is, rather a purely private matter for which no PIL is maintainable. The petitioner has failed to bring on record ample material to show that larger public interest is involved in the present matter.
14. We are of the view that the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition are vague and unsubstantiated. As such, seeking investigation in such a matter is not worth consideration. On the basis of vague averments which are nothing but mere allegations, the High Court cannot be made a forum to get the matter investigated.
15. PMAY-G is a scheme of Central Government and there are adequate measures to ensure transparency and accountability in the said scheme. Periodic inspections are supposed to be made to verify any work done under the scheme. Moreover, PMAY scheme has a dedicated grievance redressal portal i.e., "the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System" (CPGRAMS), which is an online platform for addressing grievances related to the scheme and if the petitioner has any complaint regarding implementation of the said scheme with respect to any particular individual, he should take recourse of the said grievance redressal mechanism.
16. That apart, the present writ petition also contains inconsistent facts. At some places in the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged 5 2025:JHHC:13790-DB fraudulent payment under PMAY-G scheme and at some places, he has alleged illegality in allotment of fund under MGNREGA scheme, however on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that he actually seeks investigation with respect to irregularities committed in construction of houses under PMAY-G scheme. Such causal approach in filing the present PIL is bound to be deprecated. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition which is merely based on allegations and half-baked facts.
17. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. Ritesh/ 6