ANIL JATAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, claiming following reliefs: -

(3.) 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.