Disposed¶13

Hari Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P.Thru Chief Secy.Govt.of U.P.Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023WPIL/6149/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL 6149 of 2016, Hari Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, 28.1.2023, Sinha & Vidyarthi JJ.) - petition sought CBI probe under Court supervision into alleged ~Rs. 50,000 crore scam from non-compliance with CAG audit paras by officers of 18 U.P. departments, disciplinary action for losses over Rs. 50,000 crore (CAG report FY ending 31.3.2014), and action over missing utilization certificates. Petitioner absent and disinterested; PIL consigned to record without adjudication. Useful only as an instance of PIL disposal for non-prosecution; no ratio on the CAG/CBI issues.

What did the court decide?

None appeared for the petitioner to press the petition, and it transpires from the record that by passage of time the petitioner is not interested to pursue the present P.I.L. ¶12

Hari Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru Chief Secy.Govt.of U.P.Lko.and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 6149 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Shankar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Chief Secy.Govt.Of U.P.Lko.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S.Pandey Inperson,Satyendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,Anand Dwivedi,Anurag Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

None appears for the petitioner to press this petition. However, Mr. Abhyuday Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned Counsel for Union of India and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite party No.4 are present.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶7

" (i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the investigating agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation, the opposite party no. 5 to investigate under the supervision monitoring and control of this Hon'ble Court the scam of approx. 50,000 crores of rupees being committed so far because of the intentional omission and wrongful conduct of the officers of the 18 Departments of the Government of U.P. as mentioned in para 12 of this petition by not complying the various Audit paras included in its report submitted by the CAG opposite party no.4, thus causing huge loss to the state exchequer.

¶8

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing opposite party No.1 & 2 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers of the different departments of Government of U.P. as mentioned in the para 12 of this petition who failed to discharge their statutory responsibility in not complying intentionally the observation regarding financial irregularity and losses to the tune of more than 50,000/- crore of rupees to the state exchequer as pointed out by the CAG opposite party no.4 in its report for the year ending 31st March 2014.

¶9

(iii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties No.1, 2 & 3 to call for explanation from the guilty officers and initiate disciplinary proceeding against those officers who have failed to furnish the utilization certificate s regarding funds received and said to be utilized for the implementation of the developmental projects in the state for the welfare of the people.

¶10

(v) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may

¶11

think, fit and proper may also be issued. "

¶12

It transpires from the record that by passage of time, the petitioner is not interested to pursue the present P.I.L.

¶13

Accordingly, the present P.I.L. is consigned to record .

¶14

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Ramesh Sinha, J.]

¶15

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 lakshman

¶16

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hari Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P.Thru Chief Secy.Govt.of U.P.Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P.Thru Chief Secy.Govt.of U.P.Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chairman Zila Panchayat Barabanki and Anr. 2881/SS/2008 Vs Vijay Kumar and 2 Others

Moti Lal Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy.Deptt.Housing and Urban DEVELOPMENTandORS

U.P.Road Transport Corp.Thru.Regional Manager Vs U.P.State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru.REGISTRARandANR

Kishan Chand Upadhyaya Vs State of Up Thru.Pri.Secy. Nagar Vikas and Ors.

Vijay Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its.Prin.Secy. K.v.E.K.v.v.Vibhag and Ors.

Brijbhan Singh Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Mini.of Personal Public and 14 Ors.