Umesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12354 of 2014 =========================================================== Umesh Yadav, S/o Sundar Yadav, Resident of Village Deep, Police Station Lakhnaur, District Madhubani.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Education, Project, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-11 Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 09-02-2015 This writ petition is filed by way of public interest litigation with a prayer to direct the respondents to implement the policy for the welfare of disabled persons, such as by making appointment of Awalmbak in every village of Bihar.
It is stated that on noticing that there are large number of persons, who are disabled in the area, the World Bank has funded the Scheme for the welfare of the disabled persons and, accordingly, the Awalmbaks have been appointed. The petitioner submits that facility has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.12354 of 2014 dt.09-02-2015 2/2 discontinued even while the problem remains.
Heard Sri Shailender Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Mrigendra Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.11 for the respondents.
The writ petition was initially listed for admission on 05.01.2015. On that date, it was adjourned on the request of the petitioner. On 12.01.2015, the matter was heard to certain extent and it was observed that the writ petition, as it stands now, is more for the benefit of certain employees, than for the disabled people. Though time was granted to the petitioner to take steps in this regard, he did not take any such steps. We find that there are no bonafides in the writ petition and effort of the petitioner is to ensure that some interested persons are appointed as Awalmbak in the name of the Scheme.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (L. Narasimha Reddy, CJ) (Vikash Jain, J) Sunil/- U