The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the order passed by respondent No. 4 (The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja), whereas vide order dated August 4, 2022 issued by respondent No. 2 (The Collector, District Surguja) the administrative work order has been issued for construction of stadium in favour of respondent No. 6 (The Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Ambikapur Sub Division, District Surguja) but thereafter without any authority of law, respondent No. 4 has constructed the stadium by using the low quality construction material.
Against which, the petitioner has made several representations before the competent authorities for embezzlement of public money, which has not been considered and decided by the respondents authorities till this date.
A.K.Yadav, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per work order issued by respondent No.2 respondent No.7 is a nodal construction agency, but respondent No.4 has constructed the work without any legal authority and the same is not just and proper.
He further submits that respondent No.8 is a teacher and has no authority and jurisdiction to hold the office of the CEO Janpad Panchayat and respondent No.9 is a Sub-Engineer and has no authority and jurisdiction to hold the office of the SDO, Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur. Respondent No.4 without approval of order has violated the construction of stadium work as per Section 49-A (iv) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 . Respondent No.7 being Sarpanch is empowered under the law to ensure the work of Gram Panchayat, Karji, but encroaching over the domain of respondent No.7, respondent No.4 has violated the norms prescribed in the Act of 1993 and constructed stadium work without any authority of law and the same is perverse and arbitrary.
He also submits that respondent No.4 has committed embezzlement of public money, therefore, he is liable to face the consequences. The petitioner has made several representations before the higher authorities for its enquiry, but the same have not been considered and decided by the respondents authorities till date, therefore, the petitioner has no alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this Court. The petitioner is filing the present petition on his own and not at the instance of someone else.
On the other hand, Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition which was disposed of by the Court on 13.04.2023 with liberty to ventilate his grievances on the administrative side before the respondent authorities.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice N.K. Chandravanshi while considering the fact that earlier the petitioner had filed petition for the same cause of action before the Court, which was disposed of by the Single Judge on 13.04.2023 with liberty to ventilate his grievances on the administrative side before the respondent authorities, the present petition (PIL) as framed is not maintainable and the same is dismissed by the High Court as not maintainable However, the Bench granted liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under the law.