IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11583 of 2010 ========================================= Saheb Mahto, S/O Late Murli Mahto R/O Vill.- Lalu Mahto Tola, P.O. Tika Rampur, P.S. Muffasil, Distt.- Munger ……... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Munger 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Munger 4. The Superintendent of Police, Munger 5. The Block Development Officer, Munger 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Food and Supply), Munger 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Munger 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Munger 9. The Principal Secretary, Department of Vigilance, Bihar, Patna 10. The State of Bihar through Vigilance, Bihar, Patna- Respondents ================================================ Appearance: For the petitioner: Mr Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate. For the State: Mr Kaushal Kumar Jha, SC XVIII. For the respondents 9 & 10: Mr Arvind Kumar, I/C Spl.P.P., Vigilance. =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 27.07.2010. The petitioner claims to be a public spirited person. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in public interest. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the complaint of a cognizable offence - 2 - made by him to the Vigilance Commission has not been registered and large scale financial irregularity complained of by the petitioner is being ignored by the respondent authorities. It is the first complaint of the petitioner that in the year 2004 there was a fire in Village Jagdishpur, District Munger. Some 425 families were affected. The State had extended financial aid of Rs. 2000/- to every affected family. Though the distribution of the aid was required to be made by the District Magistrate, he left it to the authorities below. The said authorities instead of distributing the aid to the affected families misappropriated the money. Around 150 families did not receive such aid. His another complaint is in respect of settlement of land to the landless persons in Village Tikarampur, District Munger. His third complaint is about implementation of the 20-Point Programme. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan has appeared for the petitioner. He has vehemently argued that the Vigilance Commission is under obligation to register a case on the complaint lodged by the petitioner - 3 - and to investigate it. On the contrary, the Vigilance Commission has forwarded the complaint to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate to the District Superintendent of Police. Thus, no investigation is made in respect of the large scale irregularity committed by the concerned authorities. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., [(2006) 2 SCC 677]. We must first note that this petition is a hotch-potch petition complaining about several matters; first regarding distribution of aid to the affected village people in respect of an incident of the year 2004, second and the third complaints are vague, without reference to specific instances. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the Vigilance Commission has directed the District Magistrate to investigate the complaint made by the petitioner and the District Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, the authority which normally enquires into the complaints. - 4 - The judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition does not deserve attention at this stage. The petition is dismissed in limine. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )