Satish Chandra Gupta And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4614 ALL
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2011

Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra Gupta And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 14 September, 2011
Bench: Syed Rafat Alam, Chief Justice, Krishna Murari



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Chief Justice's Court
 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 53209 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Gupta And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Manish Tandon
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Syed Rafat Alam,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

In the instant petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order of the State Government dated 25.06.2011, whereby respondent no.5 has been exonerated from the charges and the proceeding under Section 48 of the U.P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1916 (in short 'the Adhiniyam, 1916') is dropped.

It appears that respondent no.5 was elected as the Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat in the election held in 2006. However, some complaint regarding misappropriation of fund etc. was made against her. Consequently, a proceeding under Section 48 of the Adhiniyam, 1916 was initiated and she was served with the notice dated 21.05.2010 to show cause. The State Government, having considered the show cause and the material on record, found that the charges against her are baseless, hence exonerated her and accepted the show cause given by her.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any material or evidence on record, wherefrom it could be held that the allegations or charges against the respondents stand proved, and therefore, finding recorded in the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. Besides that, the impugned order was passed in the proceeding under the Act, which cannot be challenged in a Public Interest Litigation, as there is no element of public interest in the grievance raised, rather it appears to have been filed at the behest of the persons, who have been found guilty in the enquiry and the action is directed to have been initiated against those persons.

We do not find any public interest involved in this petition and, therefore, the same being bereft of merit, is dismissed in limine.

Order Date :- 14.9.2011 VMA/RKK (Krishna Murari, J.)      (S.R. Alam, C.J.)