Anuj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3305 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anuj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2025

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1549




                                                               1                                  WP-2136-2025
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                           &
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                 ON THE 24th OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 2136 of 2025
                                             ANUJ SHARMA AND OTHERS
                                                      Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                             Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashwini Johri - Advocate for
                          the petitioners.
                             Shri Vivek Khedkar - Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General for the
                          respondents/State.

                                                                   ORDER

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking following reliefs :-

(i) That, a strict action in accordance with law may be directed to be taken against the respondent No.4 and 5 for embezzlement of public money and for doing corruption in the matter.

(ii) That, the respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed not to permit the respondent No.4 and 5 to work in college in question i.e. Govt. Autonomous P.G. College Datia (M.P.).

(iii) That, an enquiry into the assets of respondent No.4 and 5 may be directed to fine out the earning the said

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1549

2 WP-2136-2025 respondents.

(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.

2. Petitioners are students of college in question. It is submitted that private respondents are misusing the fund to be utilized for betterment of sports facilities. Through this PIL, petitioners/students tried to demonstrate the conduct of the private respondents. It is also submitted that one of the private respondents is a Guest Faculty and he has been given the charge of Sports Officer.

3. Counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer. According to him, petitioners have nowhere referred their antecedents as public spirited

citizens. It appears to be a motivated petition. It does not disclose any public interest. Rather, it is directed against the individuals. It is also submitted that the petition is misconceived. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in [2011 (1) MPLJ 472] , the petitioners have alternative remedy to approach the appropriate authority as per law.

4 . After considering the rival submissions and going through the antecedents of petitioners as well as the relief claimed, it appears that this is not a fit case to entertain as public interest litigation. Petitioners are students of college and trying to raise the alleged illegality committed in the college. For that purpose, petitioners have other effective remedy.

5. Considering the fact situation and the nature of reliefs claimed, petitioners may resort to other alternative remedy as available to them in

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1549

3 WP-2136-2025 accordance with law to lodge complaint/representation before the appropriate authority including Lokayukt. The appropriate authority shall look into it and provide opportunity of hearing as per law and ensure consequential action. Interference declined. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

                                (ANAND PATHAK)                                     (HIRDESH)
                                    JUDGE                                            JUDGE
                          SP