Last Update: January 09, 2023, 16:54 IST
The court dismissed the petition saying that the petitioner failed to present his bona fide credentials behind the petition.
The petition was filed by Satyendra Kumar Pathak, alleging that in Gauriganj’s gram panchayat Gartholiya, the officials concerned embezzled and embezzled Rs 24 lakh allocated for construction work.
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking action against state officials for alleged embezzlement of a huge amount allocated for the construction of toilets and cremation grounds at a gram panchayat in Amethi district. was done.
The court dismissed the petition saying that the petitioner failed to present his bona fide credentials behind the petition.
public interest litigation
The petition was filed by Satyendra Kumar Pathak, alleging that in Gauriganj’s gram panchayat Gartholiya, the officials concerned embezzled and embezzled Rs 24 lakh allocated for construction work.
Citing three inspection reports from 2017 and 2020, the petitioner alleged that only 381 toilets were constructed during the financial year 2012-2013, while 464 toilets were sanctioned.
Through a public interest litigation, he has demanded a fair investigation in relation to the embezzlement and action against the wrongdoers as well as recovery of the amount of embezzlement from his salary as per the law.
objections
However, the State as well as other respondents raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the PIL, alleging that though the PIL was clearly filed in public interest, the petitioner had not made the disclosure required by sub-rule (3A). did. Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
In response to the objection, the counsel for the petitioner had argued that the petitioner was in fact the District Co-Minister of Bhartiya Kisan Sangh, Uttar Pradesh and was associated with matters relating to civil rights, therefore, he had rightly raised the grievances concerned. By filing a public interest litigation.
‘Can’t petition for personal gain’
However, the division bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Manish Kumar emphasized that though the High Court should encourage genuine and bona fide PILs, it also has a duty to discourage PILs filed for extraneous considerations and on Curb it.
The court emphasized the need to discourage a PIL filed with skewed objectives and said that it is well-settled that courts must ensure that the object of a PIL is redressal of genuine public harm.
It said that the court is also duty-bound to ensure that the PIL is not filed for personal gain or for a personal motive.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the PIL with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.
read all latest india news Here
