High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 12 PAT CK 0070

Surendra Prasad Chourasia and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 2 December 2002 · Citation: (2003) 1 PLJR 392

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · R.N. Prasad, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 2749 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 343 words
1.

There are two aspects in the matter, one is the petition itself and the other the counter affidavit, which has been filed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar.

2.

In so far as the petition is concerned, of any allegations which the Petitioners may have calling themselves virtually as public spirited people, no steps have been taken under the law, if indeed there be misappropriation of public funds, so that the matter could proceed further by an investigation whether by a First Information Report or for that matter as an inquiry, if a complaint was before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. If the Petitioners have rounded up certain facts as they referred to, nothing stops them from bringing these matters to their elected representatives. Rushing in a public interest litigation so that the court may go and make a roving and fishing inquiry is not appropriate. In this circumstance, the court is not inclined to issue a writ on this petition.

3.

The second aspect is the counter affidavit, which has been filed by the Secretary. If any facts are to be confronted in pleadings before the High Court, submissions must be just and precise.

4.

The court will not encourage cheeky submissions like one which has been made in paragraph 2 nor quotations as have been done from Issac Asimov, the mathematician, in effect, telling the court that what the Petitioners have presented is a monkey business. Such submissions should be avoided. Even the Secretary could well have based his submissions as have been done in the concluding paragraph or on observations which the court has already made that the Petitioners have not taken the responsibility to address this first to the authorities, the investigating agency or the elected representatives and having failed they have come to the High Court.

5.

Learned State Counsel (S.C. 6) apologises for the pleadings on record and submitted that they may be treated as withdrawn.

6.

The court does not find the petition worth issue of a writ.

7.

Dismissed.