HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1<<^1 Writ Petition No. 758 /2008 Sunil Kumar Jain, S/o Late Shri Tejmal Ji Jain, aged about 48 years, R/o Sadar Bazaar, Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Urban Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3. Nagar Panchayat Daundi Through The Chief Municipal Officer, District- Durg (C.G.) 4. Seva Ram Nirmalkar, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Lohara, District- Durg 5. Rudrakant Yadav, Sub-Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) 6. Gouri Shankar, S/o Shri Hari Kishan Shivhare, aged about 50 years, R/o. Near Gupta Chowk, Dalli Rajhara, District- Durg Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Present: Shri Prateek Shrama, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. |j^B8N»-. ORALORDER (08TH February, 2008) The following oral order is passed by Shri Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner - Sunil Kumar Jain has fited this writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation for the following reliefs : "7.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records ofthe case. 7.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent State to make a detail inquiry into the matter and punish the responsible persons accordingly and also recover the excess payment with interest from the respondent No. 4, 5, 6 and other responsible persons. 7.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other relief which may deem flt in the given facts and circumstances of the case including the cost ofthe petition." 3. The petitioner who is a Construction Contractor has alleged excess payment by respondent No. 3 - Nagar Panchayat, Daundi to respondent No. 6 who has executed a contract awarded to him by respondent No. 3 during the period of 2003-05. 4. For ascertaining the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition filed as 'Public Interest Litigation' a fact finding enquiry would be necessary about those t',.H- :?'-v'< ^^ allegations. Such a fact flnding enquiry can be better conducted by the Lokayukt who has its own investigation wing. 5. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach Lokayukt for redressal of the petltioner's grievance projected in the writ petition. 6. With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Kamde