IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2717 of 2006 15 6.1.2009 Council for the Protection of Public Right and Welfare through its General Secretary Sri Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate, son of Late Ram Das Prasad Gupta, resident of Mohalla Ram Krishna Colony, Police Station Sultanganj, District Patna Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Food Supply, New Delhi 2. Food Corporation of India through Chairman, New Delhi 3. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary, Department of Food Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation through Managing Director, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna Respondents --------- For the Petitioner : Mr M.P.Gupta, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate For FCI : Mr Prabhakar Tekriwal, Advocate For the State : Mr Vikas Kumar, JC to AG --------- Heard learned counsel for the State and Mr M.P.Gupta, who has argued this writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation. It goes to the credit of Mr Gupta that several 2 allegations made by him in connection with distribution of red cards to wrong persons and illegality as well as irregularity in distribution of food grains under the public distribution scheme, have been found correct by the Department of Vigilance whose enquiry report has been brought on record by the State. The State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 15.10.2008 giving details of actions taken on the basis of enquiry report by the Vigilance. It will not be proper for this Court to substitute its own wisdom for the wisdom of the State Government in the matter of policy pursuant to which circulars have been issued to plug the loopholes found in the public distribution scheme of essential food grains and other items. This Court can only emphasis that the machinery created for supervision and surveillance be kept alive to ensure that the fresh policy decision of the government yields results and malpractices detected in the past are not repeated. Mr Gupta has pointed out that the averments made in sub-para (2) and (3) of paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit show that although the 3 Food and Consumer Department, Bihar had requested the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to take necessary action against 7 District Magistrates then posted in the concerned districts but the show cause of the two officers only were received by the Department through the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and both the show cause have been accepted as satisfactory. According to Mr Gupta, he should be given copies of the show cause filed by the concerned officers so that he may find out in public interest whether the officers have been let off for valid reasons or by way of undue favour to persons responsible for causing loss to poor people by helping in derailment of the public distribution system. Similarly, he wants copies of show cause submitted by several officers of Bihar Administrative Service and Bihar Agriculture Service against whom action was recommended by the Department. According to him, the Department and the government are not showing sincerity and promptness in taking action against guilty officers. After having considered the entire background of this case, the result of the Vigilance enquiry and the 4 action taken by the State Government as detailed in the supplementary counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that no further public interest will be served by pursuing this matter any further in this Court. Hence, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Learned counsel for the State has not opposed the prayer of Mr Gupta that he should be given copies of show cause filed by the concerned officers including the District Magistrates wherever such show cause have been accepted as satisfactory by the State Government or the concerned Department. In the facts of the case, the State Government is directed to make available such show cause of the concerned officers which have been found satisfactory to Mr Gupta within a period of four weeks from today. Mr Gupta is expected to grant a receipt in token of having received such show cause. It goes without saying that Mr Gupta will be at liberty to peruse those show cause and if any further steps are required to be taken in public interest in the light of any glairing fact found by him he may take such steps in accordance with law. 5 Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State as well as Mr Gupta. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) sk