Referred petitioners sought mandamus mandamus for investigation into financial irregularities. The judge found it was a personal petition, not a PIL, as petitioners are water board members and no fundamental right was infringed. The petition was dismissed as it could be addressed via criminal law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IStSitllSIN BS!ISI
89H ;ai; SMli ai:
8K111 Ip^ ^M^^'^ ;^:^; 9&i:;M K a. ^
'sasM^ ^M^^' ws^wi
^li^i^i:gciij%gyl^^
l.^s:;.
:I|'||||||^J-^Aa;,|3u-lsiQ^(Bi^^.^ :^^F|||^^f|^^^ |iAa^t|^l^a^'l;;[;;li...:^^iit.,:.,^ ^^1@lllffllll^'%I^,'^^t^l^^^ •i^||i!:J?^|^^{':t^ ^l}^}^ •jfo|)^^ti(3^u^|i^ '^^|s|||l,^<^^::<j:^^{lQ3.^ 1;. .1. J^^iP^^f'' i.;'§itJLP{tn8. -S-i'Qj 'i<il^I^B^(^^^l|3UJJ^p4^Q':/lt^^ ,•'.'•:''.., :^^^^^^EpSfi:}.t ,{4te^.o9g. '•'a^^..^ •:.. ,,:;^/]'.. :^ii?rt|%.|t^|sp^p^,:l"::;;'y^
isas®A ^- |-(QQ)g.ma4ai^8Kl ^J^^3§K^JQ:pJ3ptSy^ltV -s^^ggi^nucte pySe <ei4iiEg; ^^ ^•^/•-" l^u^^ 's^a^9g^N^^pa^^tll{BSle"I!''1^'1,':1:;;.'1!.;:.! ^~ W^. J^^U%|% U^ Etl^g|jBBLEL^ I^SQ^IKS1^. '^aa^^^^^oc^. p^8 $ Hii^-cns |p(|8t^^;.y^/g'|^^ '^'/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -^(^ v^(]^JC>^
iHfidsviai/i ||i|^||}y|ffl|E^ •:i:s:.:;;;; ;.^'<^^:^ , : , 11.
^'
^: i'l'^n
Hl-'n
n-.iM
•'u 'S
XI-HC-22
3^T ^i^M^, ^Tn^4!^, TsKrtl^y.
^I^^.^^^0^
MWv\ fhW* ••••-•<*••-—-•••^200
JU
3:n^T^T
GhNl^l41T1 ^l^^lT^fel:^l'<f^^<-K
f^Tw^n^T 3TT^?T ^cTTW ^rf?cf
^T^rf^T3TT^T
^TW^cT
QS/02/2007
Smt. Renu Kochar, couns forthe petitioners,
Shri SumiiVerma, Panel 4awyerfof respondent No. 1 & 2/State.
None for respondents No. 13 and 4.
Heard.
This petition has been| preferred for seeking fojlowing
substantlal reJiefs:
fl( To issue a vrn^ in the nature af mandamu^
commancfing th^ nr^spondents 1 and 2 to app^nt
a hlgh enqu.u^r/ commlitee to find out fh©
truih of fate pubS,^hed m vaiious news papers
snd the wntfsn cd^mplafnts and cn besng found
the ailegaiksns |fo be irue ag^ifmt the
respondente 3 ^ncl 4 appropriate criminaf
psvc&^ings as wW procs&dlngs for r^moval of
ihe respondenti^o.\4 bedmwn;
2) to command ^be wspondents 1 and 2 to
hsrthw'sth dspute ^udst party for sudiffng ff?©
accounts of Naga^ PBHchayat Berla ^ince from
2003toti!!date;
3) Thatthe respof1(dents 1 and 2 may kindfy b@
difsct&d fo initi^e p^QC&^lngs undsr the'
Panchsy&t Raj AdHniyam against the
respondent No. 4."
Apparentiy, the reliefs soi|ght are such, which are pernrslssjbje Jn
PSL whereas thls is not a PIL. Petitioner No.1 is.a dtizen, whereas
petitloners No.2 and 3 are Wa^,r|d members of Beria and respondent
No.4 is the President, Nagar. P^nchayat, Beria. . If at ai1.as aiieged
1;.J"
XI-HC-22
3^T ^l^ld^, ^Tfl^^Ko, tsl^ll^y
311^1 45|ch
3TT^T^)T
f^rr^^n^T
^^ich^Tf?cf
+11^011 9b+<|ch
^ 200
3n^T?^<fT^K^f?cT chi<4?c'i41Ti ^i^<nT^"tel:^"<p3i<-<-i< -z^3:rf^T3:n^?T respondents No. 3 and 4 nh av^ v| commltted financiaS irregulariites, iiSegaSitles, mlsused pubiicfund||or involved in commifting aoy offence, fpr such'criminai act reportcan Me made to the Polsce or compiaint can be todged before the Criminai C|-bvrts in accordance wrth iaw. Nelther any right of the petitioners is infrir||ged nor they have any rlaht to pray for enforceiTjcnt ot' reiief as ciaimed |herein, apparently petitiorsers have .no iocus stands to fiie the instant pe)ption, even otherwise, if they have any grlevance, they may take recours|^ in accordance ¥Mhcrirninai iaw.
With aforesaid observatiorl|, this petitaon stands disposed oi
Sd/-
V.K.Shrivastava Judge
Petitioner No. 1
Petitioner No. 2
Petitioner No. 3
Smt. Renu Kochar
Shri Sumit Verma
State of Madhya Pradesh
V.K. Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
