49 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (DMSION BENCH) CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 6325 OF 2005 1. Dr. Keshav Singh Thakur, S/o Samelal Singh, Aged about 57 years, R/o. Gudiyari, Raipur,_Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Shrichand Sharma, aged about 45 years, Genearalist, R/o. Near Jain Mandir, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretery, Department of Home AfFairs, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Wear Housing Corporation, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3. Managing Director, State Wear Housing Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Assistont Inspector General of Police State Economic Offence Bureau, Raipur <C-G-) -. .. _. . _. ' 5. Union of India, Through Director, Centrat Bureau of Investigation, Delhi 6. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civjl Supply Corporation, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) Present: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Bhishma Kinger, learned standing counsel for Union of India/respondent No. 5. Mr. Prashant Mlshra, tearned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned Dy. G.A. for State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th of December 2005) - z- 50 The following order of the court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ. The petitioners daiming to be pro bono public characters have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to espouse the cause of the public at large. We have read and re-read the averments made in the wrif petition and if we may say so, the pleading is totally incomprehensive, as vague as jt could be, scanty and not intelligible at all. Be that as it may, as we would understend after hearing the learned counsel for the petftioner, the crux of the allegation, it seems, is ttiat fte paddy collected by the officers involved in Decentralized Procurement Scheme in connivance with the contractors without sending the collected paddy to the godowns concerned, has been diverted for private profits resulting in rampant corruption. The petitioners so alleging have prayed for the foliowing reliefs:- "I. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to calt the entire records relating to the case ofthe petitioners. II. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct to economic offence bureau to submtt the detailed report about the investigation done tilt date. III. That, the Hon'bte Court may kindly direct the respondents to inquire the whote matter through special officers. IV. That, the Hon'bte Court may klndly be directed to respondent No. 1 to register criminal case against the persons who are invotved in this matter. V. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent to complete the investigation within a specifjc period. Vi. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, lcK>ktng to the facts and circumstances ofthe case. Vti. Saddle the cret of the petition." 51 -3 The petitioners have not disclosed the names of the ofRcers or names of the contractors who are jndulging in corruptions and who are diverting the paddy without sending the same to ttiie concerned godowns. The veradty of the facts stated by the petitioners in this writ petition cannot be verified by any rational means or technique and they are as vague as they could be. Jt is often said and reiterated by the Courts that a pro bono publjc character before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to espouse a cau^ of ttie public with regard to a grievance, is required to make honest effort to ascertein necessary facts and lay the same before the Court for conskleration. The role of a pro bono pubtic character cannot be half- hearted or irresponsjble. The laudable objective behind the P.I.L. could be frustrated if the Courts were to permit busy bodies or who come to this Court by way of P.I.L. seeking publicity through media or for any extraneous consideration. Before parting with this case, it needs to be noticed that though the petition completely tacks in material particulars and is Jncomprehensible, not at atl verifiable, learned counsel for the petitioners witiiout any justification went on making unfounded and baseless allegations of corruption against the unnamed ofRcers taking the predous Court's time considerably and without any useful purpose. Therefore, ttie petitioner should be made accountable for this luxury, In this regard, in a recent judgment delivered in the case of Manj Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India & Others (W.P. N0. 2346 of 2005), we have highljghted on the accountability ofthose who file PtLs and their counsel. 2. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this writ petition with exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 5.000/- payable within -q. 52 ^ two weeks to the High Court Legal Services committee. The High Court Legal Services committee shatl report whettier the petitioner has complied with the direction within the stipulated time or not, after two _UAttAks- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge