Allahabad HC dismisses PIL alleging embezzlement in toilets, burial sites construction for want of bonafide credentials

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking appropriate action against the state officials for alleged embezzlement of huge amount allocated for the construction of toilets and a burial site in a village Panchayat in Amethi District.

The court dismissed the plea while observing that the petitioner failed to submit his own bonafide credential behind the petition.

The PIL was filed by one Satyendra Kumar Pathak alleging that in village Panchayat Gartholiya in Gauriganj, District Amethi, the concerned officials had misappropriated and embezzled around Rs. 24 Lakhs allocated for the construction of toilets and burial site.

Referring to three inquiry reports from 2017 and 2020, the petitioner had alleged that only 381 toilets were constructed though 464 toilets were sanctioned during the financial year of 2012-2013.

Through the PIL, he sought a fair enquiry in respect of the embezzlement and appreciate action against the erring persons along with recovery of the embezzled amount from their salary in accordance with law.

However, the State as well as the other respondents raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the PIL alleging that though the petition was ostensibly filed in the public interest, the petitioner had not made due disclosure as required by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

In response to the objection, the counsel for the petitioner had argued that the petitioner was actually a district co-minister of Bhartiya Kishan Sang, Uttar Pradesh, and was associated with matters related to civil rights, therefore, he had rightly raised the grievances concerned by filing public interest litigation.

However, the division bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Manish Kumar stressed that though the high court must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL, it is also its duty to discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

Court emphasized the need to discourage the PIL filed with oblique motives and observed that it is well settled that before entertaining the PIL, courts should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.

It said that the court is also duty bound to ensure that the PIL has not been filed for personal gain or with private motive.

Therefore, stating that in the present matter, the petitioner failed to place on record his own genuine credentials, Court refused to interfere in it.

Accordingly, it dismissed the PIL with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.

Case Title: Satyendra Kumar Pathak v. State Of U.P. Thru. Director Panchayati Raj U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others