Disposed

Banta Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012CWP/363/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking recovery of allegedly embezzled funds. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to investigate the matter and recover the amount within two months, avoiding a detailed inquiry into specific allegations at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter of alleged embezzlement and take necessary steps for recovery within two months.

Banta Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.W.P. No.363 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No.363 of 2012

¶4

Date of decision: 16.1.2012

Banta Singh

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral)

¶13

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking directions for initiation of a proceeding against respondent No.6 for recovery of money allegedly embezzled to the extent of Rs.3,32,917/-. The petitioner has brought on record several official letters written by Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Ferozepur to the B.D.P.O. Mamdot for registration of a police case in this regard. However, according to the petitioner no action has been taken on the basis of the said letters, which had compelled him to file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner on 21.7.2009. The same has also not been attended to inspite of the long efflux of time. Hence, this Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking the reliefs earlier mentioned.

¶14

At this stage and merely on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner, though the same has been sought to be supported by certain official documents, we are not inclined to go into the details of the writ petition and examine as to whether there has been embezzlement by the

¶15

C.W.P. No.363 of 2012 2

¶16

respondent No.6 as alleged. The aforesaid process, if initiated, is bound to be time consuming and also may prove to be futile in view of the every likelihood of disputed questions of fact coming to the fore. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter and take necessary steps as may be enjoined in law including steps for recovery of amount, if any. The Deputy Commissioner will complete the exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of in the above

¶18

terms.

¶19

(RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶21

January 16, 2012 RSK

¶22

NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____

Banta Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banta Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahavir Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Pb. State Indus. Development Corp. Vs Appellate Authority for Indus. & Financial

R.K. Dyeing Industry Vs Uhbvn Ltd. and Others

Kewal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sehdev Arya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ramesh Bal Vs State of Haryana and etc.