''>3^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Petition No.5S47.of 2005 Petitioner Respondents Yogesh Kumar Jain, aged about 40 years, son of Late Ratanlal Jain, resident of Near Gandhi Chowk, Nagri, District Dhamtari (CG) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public Works Deptt., (Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojana) Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) S.C. Malhotra, Executive Engineer, Public Works Depari:ment (Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojana), Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (CG) Y.K. Shukla, Sub Engineer, Public Works Department (Prime Minister Gramin Sadak Yojana), Dhamtari, Distt Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDE ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: Shri K.R. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General for the State / respondent No.1. ORDER (5th March, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. -:;?'?s^^.f,. ^«6^":t J •f 2) Petitioner Yogesh Kumar Jain has filed this writ petition styled as 'Public Interest Litigation' for the following reliefs :- "7.1 That this Hon'ble Court may catl for the records of the case. 7.2 That the Respondent No.1 be mandated to instituted an inquiry to the misdeeds of the Respondents No.2 and 3 by issuing a writ of mandamus. 7.3 That the cost of the petition be granted. 7.4 That any other relief, as this Hon'ble Court deems flt and proper be also granted." 3) The petitioner, thus, is seektng an enquiry against respondent No.2 - S.C. Malhotra, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Dhamtari and respondent No. 3 - Y.K. Shukla, Sub Engineer, Public Works Department, Dhamtari alleging commission of irregularities bythem. 4) For ascertaining the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner agalnst respondents No. 2 and 3 a 'Fact Finding Enquiry" would be necessary. Such an enquiry can be better conducted by the 'Lok Aayog'. 5) In our opinion, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the 'Lok Aayog' for the redressal of his grievances projected in the writ petition. The petitioner may also seek condonation of the detay on the ground that ttie petitioner was pursuing this writ petition under bona Me belief. 6) Wrth the above observation, the vwit petition stands disposed of. !.• Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ subbu