Patna High CourtCWJC/11963/2014dismissed

Rajesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-01-05The Chief Justice,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11963 of 2014 ====================================================== Rajesh Yadav, Son of Yogendra Yadav, resident of Village- Ranha- Kauwa tola, P.S- Sri Nagar, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur

4. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Betia

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, West Champaran, Betia

6. The S.D.M. Betia, Sadar West Champaran.

7. The Block Development Officer, Bariya, West Champaran.

8. The Programme Officer, Bariya West Champaran. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Jawahar Pd. Karna, AAG 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 05-01-2015 The writ petition is filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation with a prayer to direct the respondents to cause an enquiry into the various irregularities that have taken place in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREGA) scheme and to hold the concerned authorities responsible for the defalcation.

The petitioners have made representation before the authorities and that no action has been taken in that behalf.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11963 of 2014 (2) dt.05-01-2015 2/2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

The concern of the petitioners is, no doubt, laudable. The fact, however, remains that the scheme runs under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. In case any official is responsible for defalcation of the amount, there is mechanism to address it. The allegations made by the petitioners are vague and general in nature.

It is difficult for this Court to give any specific direction based on general allegations.

The writ application is dismissed.

Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ) (I. A. Ansari, J) K.C.jha/- U