Kamaraj Jk vs . Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 605 Meg

      Serial No. 3
      Regular List
                       HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG
WA No. 36/2022
                                                    Date of Order: 20.10.2022
Kamaraj JK                            Vs.                Union of India & ors
Coram:
           Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
           Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Appellant                : In-person

For the Respondents              : Ms. T. Sutnga, Adv vice

Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI Mr. S. Jindal, Adv for R/2 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)

It is fairly submitted on behalf of the second respondent that a

limited affidavit was filed in the court of the first instance, restricted to the

locus of the writ petitioner and the maintainability of the petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further submitted on behalf of the

second respondent that notwithstanding the previous orders of this Court

observing that a charge of defalcation was brought against an Article 12

authority, the main thrust of the writ petition was the non-adherence to the

standing order pertaining to designated officials being entitled to dispose

of claims of certain pecuniary limits.

2. It is true that the essence of the appellant's grievance in the writ

petition is that notwithstanding the standing order which ought to be

adhered to, the practice followed by the second respondent was that lower

level officials would be entitled to deal with claims that ought to have been

decided upon by higher ranked officials. As to whether there is any

defalcation as a result of such practice which is not in accordance with the

standing order is a matter that is required to be inquired into. At the very

least, there is a possibility of defalcation or misuse of public funds which

calls for a scrutiny.

3. As to the locus of the appellant-writ petitioner, it is too late in the

day for the second respondent to insist on the strict rule of locus standi. The

manner in which the law has developed in this country permits even a

bystander or a passerby to bring to the attention of a constitutional court

any grave violation in the functioning of any State or other authority

answering to that description in Article 12 of the Constitution which has a

possibility of public money being wasted or needlessly expended. Once

such matter is brought to the notice of a constitutional court,

notwithstanding the status of the petitioning complainant, it is the duty of

the constitutional court to make a prima facie inquiry. It is possible that

nothing may come out of it and the grievance may be found to be

completely out of place or without basis. But the petition ought not to be

thrown out without making a preliminary inquiry unless it appears ex facie

to be founded on ulterior motive or made with oblique purpose.

4. Accordingly, the order impugned dated August 30, 2022 in WP

(C) No.41 of 2022 is set aside and the writ petition is restored to the board

of the Single Bench for it to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law.

So as not to delay the matter any further, the respondents to the writ

petition, including the second respondent herein, are permitted to file their

affidavits-in-opposition to the writ petition within four weeks from date. It

is recorded that the Union is represented here.

5. An affidavit-in-reply may be filed by the petitioner to the

affidavits-in-opposition within a week of the receipt thereof.

6. Nothing in this order will inhibit the Single Bench from deciding

the petition in accordance with law.

7. WA No.36 of 2022 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

      (W. Diengdoh)                                     (Sanjib Banerjee)
           Judge                                           Chief Justice
Meghalaya
20.10.2022
 Lam DR-PS"