Categories
Legal Topics

Bombay High Court rejects PIL for probe into waterworks in Aurangabad district

The Bombay High Court has currently (February 14) brushed aside a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in search of instructions to respondent authorities to appoint a fabulous enquiry committee to habits an inquiry in appreciation of the works of the Water Supply Scheme at village Kaygaon, Taluk Sillod, District Aurangabad completed below the Employment Guarantee Scheme and to take similarly motion in opposition to individuals accountable for misappropriation of authorities cash and for that cause problem imperative orders.

It is alleged via the petitioner Nilkanth that the personal respondents have indulged in misappropriation of public dollars whilst the development of wells and pipelines underneath the Employment Guarantee Scheme had been in development and no steps have been taken in opposition to them.

The petitioner seeks an order so that such allegations of misappropriation may additionally be examined at the first occasion by way of an enquiry committee to be appointed through the High Court.

On perusal of the PIL, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice N.B. Suryawanshi did now not locate any averment of lodging of an FIR through the petitioner with the police.

The Court held that as soon as it is alleged that public money has been misappropriated, which is a crook offence, it is every day to count on the crook regulation to be set in action through lodging an FIR.

S.S. Thombre, suggest for the petitioner, does no longer dispute that FIR has now not been lodged utilizing the petitioner and that the High Court has been approached without delay besides police being known as upon to check out the alleged crook offence.

“It is settled regulation that when the regulation gives equipment for redress and such equipment is now not invoked, it would no longer be a desirable exercising of jurisdiction to entertain a PIL. Because of the same, we are disinclined to entertain this public activity litigation,” the Court stated whilst brushing aside the PIL.

Leave a Reply