IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.15032 OF 2006 Date of Decision: 13.8.2008 Suresh Chand Goyal ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. The petitioner is a contractor by profession. His grievance is against what he describes “rampant corruption, malpractice and bungling” allegedly prevalent in the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad. A mandamus directing an enquiry into all such misdeeds of those responsible and appropriate action against them has, therefore, been prayed for. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Lakhanpal drew our attention to a complaint addressed by the petitioner to Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana in which the later has enumerated various acts of omission and commission that according to him call for a detailed enquiry and suitable action against those guilty of the same. He submitted that although the petitioner has been approaching other authorities also but no meaningful action has been CWP NO.15032 OF 2006 -2- taken on the said complaint by any one so far leaving no alternative for the petitioner except to agitate the matter in the present proceedings. Respondents No.2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit, in which the allegations of corrupt mal-practice and bungling have been stoutly denied. It is alleged that petition has been filed only to coerce the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to allot civil and other works to one Shri Vishnu Goel who happens to be son of the petitioner and listed contractor with the said corporation. The allegation that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation has been guilty of acts of corruption as alleged or accumulation of wealth has also been denied. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the present petition is not a fit case in which we ought to interfere in exercise of our public interest jurisdiction. We say so because the allegations of corruption, mal-practices and bungling leveled against the respondents raise disputed questions of the fact which cannot be satisfactory answered in the present extra ordinary writ proceedings. That apart, we see no reason why the petitioner should not take resort to proceedings before the Lokayukta who is competent to initiate investigation and recommend appropriate action against any one found guilty of any act of misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance, corrupt malpractice or bungling. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not approached the Lokayukta at any point of time with any complaint so far. There is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner for his failure to do so. In the circumstances, the proper course for the petitioner is to take resort to proceedings before Lokayukta and cooperate with the investigation, if any, instituted by him for discovering the truth. It is only in case, no action is taken by the Lokayukta against the concerned despite the petitioner furnishing the requisite particulars and data to support the initiation of an appropriate investigation than the petitioner may have a reason to make a grievance in this CWP NO.15032 OF 2006 -3- Court. For the present, there is no room for us to interfere. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek redress as afore- mentioned in accordance with law. No costs. ( T. S. THAKUR ) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 13.08.2008 ‘ravinder’