NARENDRA BAJPAYI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was running a tile factory and was also a contractor. He filed this PIL way back in 1985 alleging that respondent No. 2 (the then Executive Engineer in Irrigation Division, Shahapur) was acting in a manner prejudicial to the economic and financial interest of the State. In support he also cited some instances of alleged irregularities committed by this respondent under whom he had executed some contracts. He accordingly prayed that a mandamus be issued to government to ask the Executive Engineer concerned to vacate the post or to dismiss him from service or to take any other appropriate and exemplary "punishing action" against him as deems under the circumstances.

(2.) RECORD shows that respondents were put on notice and they filed their reply refuting the allegations and pointing out that the reliefs prayed were incapable of being granted by this Court.

(3.) WE are at a loss to understand how the petitioner, who had expressed an individual interest in the petition itself could take upon himself to file this PIL claiming reliefs which were incapable of being granted. After all it was not for this Court to direct the employer to remove the Executive Engineer concerned from service or to vacate his post de hors of protection he enjoyed under the Constitution and service rules.