Dismissed¶31

Aakash Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Aug 2024CWJC/5171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL/CWJC 5171 of 2024 (Patna High Court, decided 23-08-2024, oral judgment per Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, with J. Partha Sarthy): petition alleging misappropriation ('loot') of Panchayat fund by Mukhiya, Secretary and Block Officers of Parta Panchayat, Block Amba/Kutumba, Aurangabad DISMISSED; allegations held vague, without reference to any scheme, and alleged wrongdoers not impleaded; DPRO enquiry report Annexure-R/A dated 20.09.2023 (predating filing) found Gram Sabhas regularly held, works completed, solar street lights installed, allegations invalid; petitioner cautioned against detail-less PILs without necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition (Public Interest Litigation) was filed with bland allegations and without impleading the parties (eo nomine) against whom the allegations are raised. ¶20

Aakash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Public Interest Litigation, filed with bland and vague allegations and without impleading the parties against whom the allegations are raised, should be entertained. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The writ petition (Public Interest Litigation) was filed with bland allegations and without impleading the parties (eo nomine) against whom the allegations are raised.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The allegations were vague and made without reference to any particular scheme; apart from these vague allegations, no substantiated particulars supported the writ petition.

¶23

Key takeaways

On the enquiry conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Aurangabad (report Annexure-R/A), the Gram Sabha of Parta Panchayat was found to be regularly organised by the elected Mukhiya/Panchayat Secretary, works in Ward Nos. 3 to 6 were completed without complaint from the locality, solar street lights were installed in Ward Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 11, and the allegations were found not valid.ratio¶27
The Court found absolutely no reason to keep the writ petition pending, noting further that the enquiry report (Annexure-R/A) dated 20.09.2023 long preceded the filing of the writ petition.ratio¶28
The writ petitioner was cautioned against initiating similar Public Interest Litigations without proper details and without impleading the necessary parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5171 of 2024 (decided 23-08-2024; oral judgment per the Chief Justice, K. Vinod Chandran, with Justice Partha Sarthy on the bench): A Public Interest Litigation by Aakash Kumar alleging 'brazen loot' of the Panchayat fund in Parta Panchayat, Block Amba/Kutumba, District Aurangabad, by the Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary and Block Officers was dismissed. The petition rested on bland, vague allegations without reference to any particular scheme and failed to implead eo nomine the persons against whom allegations were raised; the petitioner also sought repeated adjournments and none appeared when the matter was called. Though notice had not been issued and the petition stood unadmitted, Respondents No. 4 to 8 filed a counter affidavit enclosing the enquiry report of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Aurangabad (Annexure-R/A, dated 20.09.2023, i.e., long before filing), which found the Gram Sabha regularly organised, works in Ward Nos. 3 to 6 completed without local complaint, and solar street lights installed in Ward Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 11; the allegations were found not valid. Finding no reason to keep the petition pending, the Court dismissed it and cautioned the petitioner against instituting similar PILs without proper details and without impleading the necessary parties.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5171 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Aakash Kumar Son of Jitendra Singh Resident of Village and P.O.-Purata, P.s.-Amba, District-Aurangabad.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Patna, Bihar.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Patna, Bihar.

¶8

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶10

The Deputy Development Commissioenr, Kutumba, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶11

The District Panchayat Raj Officer. District-Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶12

The Block Development officer, Block-Kurumba or Amba, DistrictAurangabad.

¶13

The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Block-Kurumba or Amba, DistrictAurangabad, Bihar.

¶14

The Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Parta, Block-Amba of Kutumba, District-Aurangabad. Bihar.

¶15

The Panchayat Mukhiya Panchayat Parta, Block-Amba of Kutumba, District-Aurangabad. Bihar.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhim Sen Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶18

Date : 23-08-2024

¶19

The above Public Interest Litigation has been filed

¶20

with bland allegations and without impleading the parties eo -

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.5171 of 2024 dt.23-08-2024 2/4

¶22

nominee ; against whom allegations are raised.

¶23

The petitioner in the writ petition contends that there is brazen loot of the Panchayat fund under Block- Amba or Kutumba in District-Aurangabad by the Mukhiya, Secretary and the Block Officer. The Petitioner has also filed three representations. The petitioner has merely stated that the Mukhiya along with the Officers are implementing the Panchayat Schemes behind close doors without any concern for the development of the Panchayat. It is also submitted that in the Aam Sabha, only seven to eleven persons, including the ward members, are present. But for the above vague allegations without any reference to a particular scheme, the writ petition has been filed.

¶24

On the first day, none appeared for the petitioner and then on three dates, when the matter was posted, there were requests for adjournment made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Today also, a prayer for adjournment was made which we declined. The matter was kept aside and when it was taken up for hearing, none appeared.

¶25

Though notice was not issued and the writ petition was not admitted, still a counter affidavit is filed by the Respondents No. 4 to 8. It is stated that pursuant to the

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.5171 of 2024 dt.23-08-2024 3/4

¶27

representation of the petitioner, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Aurangabad has conducted an enquiry on each and every point raised by the petitioner; in accordance with the directions of the Minister of Rural Development, Government of Bihar. The report is produced as Annexure-R/A. The District Panchayat Raj Officer found that the meeting of the Gram Sabha of Parta Panchayat has been organised by the elected Mukhiya/Panchayat Secretary in the presence of the villagers regularly in due intervals; which is evident from the proceedings of the Gram Sabha. The Enquiry Officer had also examined the implementation of the different schemes in Ward Nos. 3 to 6 of Parta Panchayat. It was found that work has been completed and the people of the locality had no complaint about the work. Solar street lights were also found installed in Ward Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 11 of the Panchayat. The allegations are said to be not valid.

¶28

We find absolutely no reason to keep the writ petition pending. We also notice that the report of the Panchayat Raj Officer, produced as Annexure-R/A is dated 20.09.2023, long before filing of the writ petition. We caution the writ petitioner from initiating similar Public Interest Litigations without proper details and without impleading the

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.5171 of 2024 dt.23-08-2024 4/4

¶30

necessary parties.

¶31