RUSTAM ALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Ranchi Regional Development Authority and counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

(2.) THE grievance, in this writ petition, filed in public interest, relates to the developments and needs of a particular area of the Ranchi Town. According to the petitioner, various schemes can be taken up to improve the facilities available in that area. It was alleged that Ranchi Regional Development Authority was not taking up and completing various projects that have been proposed for the benefits of this area. A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority submitting that out of the various works, six items of works were entrusted to the Ranchi Regional Development Authority has completed all those works. Of course, in a further rejoinder the petitioner has submitted that one of the works has not been fully completed. If that be so, we have no doubt that the Ranchi Regional Development Authority will complete that work also as expeditiously as possible. But, as we have noticed, the stand of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority is that that work has also been completed. Therefore, there is no occasion for issuing any further direction to the Ranchi Regional Development Authority regarding the works that have been entrusted to it.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that the funds to be used at the discretion of the Member of parliament and the Member of the State Legislative Assembly could be utilized for the purpose of improvement of the area in question. The stand of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority and Municipal Corporation is that they have not received any contribution from the funds of the Member of Parliament or the Member of the Legislative Assembly. Though the petitioner originally impleaded the Member of Parliament and the Member of Legislative Assembly, they were subsequently removed from the party array. Therefore, there is no question of issuing any direction to those representatives of the people in this case even assuming that this Court can control the spending of the funds made available to them in their capacity as Members of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly. That part of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are, therefore, rejected.