Anil Jatav vs State of M.P. and Others

Heard.

This writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, claiming following reliefs:-

(i) The petition may kindly be allowed with cost; and

(ii) The all proceeding done by the respondent no. 5 as like agenda be declared null and void and against the procedure;

(iii) The respondents authority may kindly be directed to stop the illegal construction as boundary wall which is used by fund of BRGF; and

(iv) The respondents be directed the repaired the Sanjay stadium and modified, or take care or also constructed a Gymnastics ground; and

(v) The any other relief which this Hon''ble Court may think proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may also be granted.

The basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that without obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority to raise boundary wall, the construction has been carried out by respondent No. 5 by misusing the fund after joining hands with respondent No. 3 and 4 and therefore, considering the seriousness of the issue involved in the case, it is prayed to issue appropriate directions against the respondents.

By filing reply, respondent No. 5 contends that no such irregularity has been committed and the construction of the boundary wall has been raised as per the rules and the policy framed by the State Govt. It is contended that looking to the worst condition of the stadium and encroachments made by certain persons within its periphery, constructions of the boundary wall was necessitated for safety purposes, which was done after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. So far as mis-utilization of the funds are concerned, it is submitted that the instructions issued on this subject by the State Govt. have been duly followed and there is no misappropriation of the funds, as alleged by the petitioner. Over above all, it is contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant petition, as he merely tried to highlight the action of the respondent No. 5. Hence it is prayed that the petition be dismissed without involving any substance.

No doubt in an appropriate case, this court can issue directions, if there is any gross violation of fundamental right or if the issue touches the conscience of the court, but at the same time no direction can be issued for personal gain, publicity or for espousing the cause of particular authority in the garb of PIL.

On perusal of the return submitted by the respondent No. 5, it is clear like a noon that the stand taken by the authorities concerned are in conformity with the rules and the policy framed by the State Govt. It is further apparent from the return that for raising construction, the matter was placed before the Collector for seeking permission. After advertisement, the tenders were invited by the Chief Municipal Officer, Guna vide Annexure R/5 and on opening the lowest one was accepted during the proceedings of the Municipal Council. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity has been committed by respondent No. 5.

Thus, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances, we find that this PIL is nothing but has been filed with a view to criticize the action of respondent No. 5, in the garb of public interest. However, the petitioner is left with a liberty to file a complaint before EOW if he finds that any illegality in using the funds has been committed by the respondent No. 5.

With this observation, the petition stands disposed of.