H‘GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR )3» Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Present: Shri Alok Bakshi, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional AdvocateGenerai for the State/ respondents. DIWSION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR siNHA, J. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 879 of 2011 “ax, Petitioner Amarnath AgrawaL S/o Shri Ramavatar AgrawaL aged about 42 years, Rio 234, Kosabadi Korba, District Korba (CG) VERSUS Resnondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Water Resources, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Engineer In Chief, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Sihawa Bhawan Raipur(CG) 3; Chief Engineer, (monitoring) Department of Water Resources, Office of Engineer in Chief, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 4 Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Basin Biiaspur, Korba (CG) 5 Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Korba, District Korba(CG) ORDER (17m February, 201 1) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Petitioner Amarnath Agrawai claiming himself to be a public spirited person and journalist by profession, has filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public interest Litigation’ for the following reliefs : “10.1 That the State respondent may‘kindly be directed to instruct the engineer-in-Chief to fonrvard the report dated 01‘122009 to the Government and to take appropriate action on the officers found ‘guilty of negligence, misconduct and act of causing loss of Government money. 10.2 That the respondent State may kindly be directed to initiate enquiry on the compliant submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P-5. 10.3 That the State Government may further be directed to initiate enquiry immediately in the breaking down of dam/tank at Madanpur and Chitakhoi. 10.4 The State Government be directed to initiate enquiry against the erring Executing Engineer, S.D.O. and the Sub Engineer, in regard to whom the State Government acknowledges that the said officer was involved in misappropriation of Government money, making payment for uncompieted work resulting in loss to Government fund. 10.5 Any other suitable direction to the respondent State, in the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case may kindly be issued, in the interest of justice.” D 3) The petitioner, thus in substan'ce, is seeking a direction for initiating an enquiry against the erring Executive Engineer, Sub- Divisionai Officer and Sub-Engineer for their a’iieged misconduct. 4) For ascertaining the correctness of the aiiegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition, a ’fact finding enquiry‘ would be necessary. in our opinion, such a ‘fact finding enquiry' can be better conducted by the ‘Lok Ayog’. 5) in this View of the matter, it would be. appropriate for the petitioner to approach the ‘Lok Ayog’ for the redressai of hi grievances projected in the writ petition. i eh s 6 With the above observation, the writ we petition is dismissedm a r _ W Sdl- I, Sd/_ 1 KUMAR SINHA 5mm. Chief Justice