IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7920 of 2010 RAJ KUMAR SINHA, S/O RAGHUNANDAN MATHO, R/O VILLAGE - MAKUNDAN BIGHA, P.S.- CHANDI, DISTRICT- NALANDA. … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (VIGILANCE), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA. 5. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, NALANDA. 6. ALL BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NALANDA. 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,NALANDA. 8. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDI,NALANDA. … Respondents ------- For the petitioner : Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. Ramchandra Pd. Bharti, S.C.14. : Mr. Ajay Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 14 :Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. ----------- 2. 06.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner professing to act pro bono publico has made prayer for the following reliefs; “(a) For commanding the State respondent to take appropriate legal action against the guilty Public Officials who miss-appropriated the money in the name of Disel Anudan, which has to be distributed to the poor farmers of the concerned areas due to poor rain as the funds was provided by the State Government in the district of Nalanda. (b) And/or also for commanding 2 the respondent to make independent enquiry by the vigilance department regarding the scam in the name of Disel Anudan for the year 2009-2010. (c) Also for commanding the respondent not to take any punitive action against the petitioner and others similarly situated persons who has raised the issues on different occasions of time before appropriate authority. “ Counsel for the State, however, has raised a preliminary objection as with regard to bona fide of the petitioner in moving this Court by filing this Public Interest Litigation. He further submits that pointed allegation by the petitioner is against the Block Development Officer, Tharthari who is said to have embezzled the amount for grant of diesel to be distributed among the farmers whereas the said B.D.O., Tharthari had filed a first information report against the petitioner and his wife as with regard to embezzlement of amount of crop insurance scheme. From the reading of the First Information report of Chandi P. S. Case No. 7 of 2010 dated 18.1.2010 filed against the petitioner and his wife for offence under Sections 419, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, it appears that four persons including the petitioners were alleged to have misappropriated the Government fund in 3 respect of crop insurance. It, thus, becomes clear that the petitioner has somehow filed this writ petition either by way of vengeance against the B.D.O. on account of latter filing of criminal case against the petitioner or such allegations have been brought by the petitioner to save his own neck. Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction as prayed for in this writ petition which lacks the bona fide on the part of the petitioner. The very fact that the first information report against the petitioner was filed by the Block Development Officer on 18.1.2010 whereafter this writ application has been filed on 4.5.2010 would go to show that this writ petition is personal interest litigation of the petitioner and not public interest litigation. That being so, this writ petition cannot be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)