IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5187 of 2010 JAGAT NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE DUNI LAL SINGH PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL - P.O.RAMCHANDRA, P.S. MADHEPUR, DISTT- MADHUBANI, PRESENTLY AN M.L.A. FROM MADHEPUR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY NO.83, P.S.MADHEPUR, DISTT-MADHUBANI---petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT (GRAMIN KARYA BIBHAG) BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE -CUM-COLLECTOR MADHUBANI 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER MADHUBANI 5. PROJECT DIRECTOR , DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MADHUBANI 6. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER JHANJHARPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF MADHUBANI 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAKHNAUR, P.S.LAKHNAUR, DISTT-MADHUBANI 8. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MADHEPUR, P.S.MADHEPUR, DISTT- MADHUBANI 9.PRADEEP KUMAR, SON OF NOT, PANCHAYAT SEWAK, LAKHNAUR BLOCK, P.S.LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. 10.UPENDRA SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN, PANCHAYAT SEWAK, LAKNAUR BLOCK, P.S. LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. 11.GANGA RAUT, SON OF NOT KNOWN, PANCHAYAT SEWAK, LAKHNAUR BLOCK, P.S. LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 12.RAM PARIKSHAN MAHTO, SON OF NOT KNOWN, PANCHAYAT SEWAK, LAKHNAUR BLOCK, P.S. LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 13.GANGA YADAV, SON OF NOT KNOWN, PANCHAYAT SEWAK, MADHEPUR BLOCK, P.S. MADHEPUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ------- Respondents. 2 ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C.21. 2 26-03-2010 Heard Sri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C.-21 for the State. The petitioner, a sitting Member of Legislature Assembly professing to act pro bono publico has moved this court for the following relief:- "For immediate execution of different works under M.L.A. quota under Lakhnaur Block and Madhepur Block, both in the district of Madhubani details of which are contained in letter in Memo No. 928 dated 19.05.2008 as well as letter no. 633 dated 03.04.2008 and letter in Memo no. 929 dated 19.5.2008, all issued under the signatures of respondent Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani respectively and for initiation of appropriate Departmental proceeding and criminal prosecution against the respondent Block Development Officer, Lakhnaur Block, Block Development Officer, Madhepur Block, both under Madhubani district, respondent nos. 7 and 8 as well as various Panchayat Sewaks, who have been appointed as executant of the works namely respondent nos. 9 to 13 for their intentional deriliction of duty and embezzlement of fund in execution of the development works." The seminal questions that emanate for consideration in this Public Interest Litigation is as to 3 whether a member of Legislative Assembly can invoke the weapon of public interest litigation alleging that though he has recommended for completion of certain schemes on the basis of funds allotted to him, yet the same have not been executed because of dereliction of duty and embezzlement of funds and whether this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction would issue a mandamus to execute the work and direct conducting of enquiry for non implementation or improper implementation of his recommendation. Having heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K.Singh, learned counsel for the State, we are only inclined to state that the Public Interest Litigation was never conceived of as a weapon in armory meant for this kind of battle royal in a Court of law. Needless to say, the petitioner for the aforesaid relief does have other platforms to agitate or take steps under requisite statutes as advised in law but not for foster any kind of heroics through a Public Interest Litigation. 4 Being of this view, our inevitable conclusion is that the writ petition has to pave the path of dismissal, which we direct. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)