IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8693 of 2008 Lal Babu Rai s/o Sri Nagina Rai, resident of village – Pojhi Kapoor, P.S. – Marhaura, District – Saran, Chhapra, at present Member of Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Engineer –in- Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Division Saran, Chhapra 4. The District Magistrate Saran, Chhapra 5. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 6. The Executive Engineer, GADA, Saran Chhhapra 7. The Executive Engineer, GADA Gopalganj 8. The Joint Engineer, GADA Marhaura, Sub-division Saran, Chhapra 9. The Junior Engineer GADA, Gopalganj. … Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the respondent nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Shashi Kant Singh, JC to GA-VI For the respondent nos. 6 to 9 : Mr. Ishwari Singh, Advocate P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. N. Singh --- Dated, the 1st December, 2008 This writ petition is in the nature of public interest litigation. The petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to ensure that while executing the scheme of cleaning river Mahi and Dabra alias Ghoghari between Panapur and Amnour within the district of Saran (Chhapra), public money is not misappropriated. 2. The petitioner has alleged that the Executive 2 Engineer and the Junior Engineers have connived with the contractor and there is every likelihood of misappropriating the public money. 3. The respondent nos. 6 to 9 have filed counter affidavit. They have denied the allegations made in the writ petition. It is the case of respondent nos. 6 to 9 that there is no provision of drainage work between Panapur and Amnour in the Dabra Ghoghari river under the approved scheme of Ghoghari drainage. In so far as Mahi drainage scheme is concerned, it is their stand that technically checked scheme was sent to Gandak Command Area Development Agency, Muzaffarpur on 20th February, 2008. This scheme was designed to drain an area of 2868.15 acres; length of the drain was approximately 88 Kms. The respondents have stated that work orders were issued on 9th May, 2008 after following the prescribed procedure and the work started immediately thereafter. By 31st May, 2008, seventy five - eighty percent of the works are said to have been completed. To ensure that there is no misuse of public funds, the Engineer-in- Chief , Water Resources Department, has issued detailed instructions, whereby measurements are to be taken after rainy season and final payment of bill would be released along with security only if the Superintending Engineer certifies the completion of work, according to the sanctioned estimate. 4. In what has been stated in the counter affidavit and, 3 particularly, in view of the instructions issued by the Engineer-in- Chief, Water Resources Department, on 5th July, 2008, the apprehension of the petitioner that public funds would be misused in execution of drainage work is misconceived and unfounded. No order needs to be passed by this court in high prerogative jurisdiction. 5. Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. J. N. Singh, J. Neyaz/-