Dismissed

Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2014CWP/17692/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Public Interest Litigation sought a direction to conduct a vigilance enquiry into alleged embezzlement by PRTC officers due to huge losses. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that without specific allegations against particular officers, a vigilance enquiry cannot be ordered.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conduct a thorough vigilance enquiry into acts of embezzlement by senior officers of the PRTC.

Shiv Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.17692of2014(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 29.08.2014

¶3

Shiv Kumar and others

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

 .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,ACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶9

Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶11

The petitioners have filed this petition by way of a
public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct a
thorough vigilance enquiry into various acts of embezzlement and
misappropriation of funds by the senior officers of the Pepsu

¶12

Road Transport Corporation (PRTC). It has been averred that the
PRTC is suffering huge losses for which its senior officers are
responsible. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that a representation has also been made in this regard
to respondents No.2 and 3, but no action has been taken thereon.

¶13

 A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition
shows that there are no specific allegations against any

¶14

PARKASH CHAND 2014.08.29 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP-17692-2014

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

particular officer. In the absence of the same, no vigilance
enquiry can be ordered.

¶18

 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

 The petitioners may, however, pursue their

¶20

representation at their own end.

¶21

 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

29.08.2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
parkash*JUDGE

¶23

PARKASH CHAND 2014.08.29 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Main Pal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rani Inderjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhartiya Kisan Union Vs State Ofpb.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kulwant Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.