?,%'^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiViSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. W.P. (PiL) No. 4640 of 2006 Petitioners 1. Vishwananth Yadav S/o Rajgir Yadav, aged about 26 years, occupation social worker, resident of Agroha Marg, Korba, Tahsil and district Korba i .G.) Santosh Kumar Goyat S/o Late Shri Tek Chand Goysl, aged about 45 years, occupation Journalist / socia! worker, resldent of Agroha Marg, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantraiay, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Secretary, Food and Public Distribution Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Building, Raipur, Tahai! and District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director, Directorate of Food and Pubilc Distribution and Consumer Protection, Chhsttisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil and DlstriGt Raipur (C.G.) Collector. Korba, Dlstrict Korba (C.G.) Shri P.S. Elma, Sub Divisional Officer (R) Korba, Tahsi! and District Korba (C.G.) ^E^SffflU^ 2 •A '% -^- 6. Smt. Neelam Eima, Food Controilsr, Korba, Tahsi! and Dlstrict Korba (C.G.) 7. Shri Vinod Modi, President, Jai Mahalaxmi Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar, Ward No. 5, Korba, Tahsil and Dlstrict Korba (C.G.) 8. Shri Harish Parsai, President, !dhan Apurti Prathmik Sahakari Sanstha, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) 9. The Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natura! Gss, Government of India, New Deihi. Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of India Present: Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the petitlonsrs. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate Genera! for respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsei for respondents No. 5 S 6. Shri Ravish Verma, learned counsei for respondents No. 7 & 8. Shri Rajneesh Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsei on behalf of Shri Shaliendra Dubey, iearned Standlng Counsel for Union of india / respondent No.9. ORDER •th (2SIn March, 200S) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard learned counsei for the partles. 2. The petitioners claiming themselves to be social spirited persons have filed this writ petitlon styled as 'Public interest Litigation' for the following reliefs :- ,%' c "7.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent State authority to produce the entlre records of Issuance of the allotment order by the respondents 6 and 5 together wlth the records of the Nagar Paika Nigam Korba and the records of the fair price shops of respondents 7 and 8 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; 7.2 That this Hon'bte Court be further pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent State to produce the inquiry report which has been inltiated on the orders of the Hon'ble Food Mlnister; 7.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order for high level enquiry; 7.4 That this.Hon'ble Court may kindly be pteased to command the respondent State to initiate criminal as well as departmentat enqulry against the respondent no. 6 and 5 and criminal proceedings be drawn against the respondents 7 and 8 and they be declared black listed in the food department; 7.5 Any other rellef which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition." 3. The petitioners, thus, in substance are seeking initiation of Departmental Enquiry against respondents No. 5 & 6 for the alleged irregularities sald to have been committed by them in the matter of distribution of kerosene. o 9.'^ •^.o' «6 c lte 4. For ascertainino the correctness of the alleoations made by the petitioners against respondents No. 5 &6, a 'Fact Findlng Enquiry' would be necessary. Such a 'Fact Finding Enquiry' can be better conducted by 'Lok Aayog' who has its own investigation wing. 5. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the petltioners to approach 'Lok Aayog' for the redressal of their grievances projected in the writ petition. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Consequentiy, M.W.P. No. 3588/2006 also stands disposed of. 8. The security amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited by the petitioner be refunded to the petitionei Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge mmnu