SURENDRA PRASAD CHOURASIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(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 court will not encourage cheeky submissions like one which has been made in paragraph 2 nor quotations as have been done from lssac 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.