1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. <<>> :: O R D E R :: Prabhu Ram Beniwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO. 5217/2006. Date of Order :: 12th December 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Nikhi Dungawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the respondents. ...... BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any case for issuance of any writ, order or direction at the instance of the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged himself having been granted a trading licence in the main Mandi yard at Sardarshahar, District Churu and, with reference to the fact that the said Mandi yard has been declared to be the area for transacting the business related to agriculture produces, the petitioner has referred to certain irregularities found by the Commercial Taxes Department in the dealings of certain firms; 2 and, while asserting that the defaulter firms have caused loss to the public exchequer, the petitioner has alleged that himself and his “associates” sought information about the Mandi tax paid by the defaulter firms during the year 2002-03 and 2004- 05 and it was found that they had not made any payment in that regard. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents initiated criminal proceedings only against the five defaulter firms while actually eight firms were the defaulters and even in relation to the said five firms, incomplete charge sheets were filed. The petitioner has further submitted that himself and his “associates” filed some complaints to higher authorities and met the officers for taking necessary action but no appropriate action had been taken and the persons involved in the scam have not been taken to task. It has also been cursorily suggested with reference to the information provided by Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sardarshahar that certain expenditure had been shown on arrangements of electricity, water, watchmen etc., but the Mandi was not functioning properly at the designated place and proper facilities and infrastructure were yet to be provided. The cause to maintain this writ petition has essentially been stated in paragraphs 16 and 17 that are reproduced verbatim as under:- “16. That the petitioner and his associates are aggrieved by the fact that since the Krishi Upaj Mandi is not functioning appropriately at the designated place and proper facilities and infrastructure is not being provided to them thus 3 causing them not only the losses in business but also virtual impairment due to the functioning of the authorities outside the purview of laid down norms with there malafide intention of channelizing the trade and profits to few of the traders. 17. That the petitioner being aggrieved of the corruption prevailing in the Krishi Upaj Mandi whereby the public money worth of Lacs of rupees is being grabbed by the officials and firms of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sardarshahar and also being aggrieved of the gross negligent on the part of respondents to take action against the culprits. Hence this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being filed on the following grounds...” The petitioner has taken the grounds in this writ petition that there is a deliberate failure of system “prompted” by the authorities so as to cause severe loss to the pubic exchequer to the benefit of the defaulters; that even after exposure of such acts and deeds, the losses are being suffered by the public exchequer and the innocent traders like himself are bearing the burnt of financial irregularities; that systematic annihilation caused due to apathy of the respondents has led to crumbling of the institution meant for trading in agriculture produces for the benefit of the society; that the Commercial Taxes Department disclosed the scam of Rs. 52.31 lacs but charge-sheet was filed only for Rs. 12.35 lacs; that the related business was not to be permitted outside New Mandi Yard but the respondents intentionally had given the permission to the defaulter firms; that the respondents are sleeping over the matter and not taking the action against the persons involved 4 in the scam; that when the scam was disclosed in newspapers, the respondents ought to have initiated action against the culprits; that some officials including the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sardarshahar and the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Nokha are suspected to be involved in the scam; that the respondents are turning a blind eye towards the vital issues raised by many persons including the petitioner. With these grounds, the petitioner submits that interference of this Court is required in the matter and has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:- A/ By an appropriate writ order direction the respondents may kindly be directed to enforce the functioning of Krishi Upaj Mandi at Sardarshahar to function in accordance with law at the New Krishi Upaj Mandi Campus while providing effective trading facilities and infrastructure at this spot without permitting individuals to circumvent the process of trading outside the campus causing loss to the public ex-chequer. B/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct independent investigation into the scam right from the beginning. So that the total volume of the scam in Sardarshahar rural area can be found out and suitable action should be initiated against the culprits. C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to take necessary action to recover the public money grabbed by the culprits. D/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just 5 and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.” A bare look at the writ petition is sufficient to notice that the petition is nothing more than a generalized but vague complaint against the system without disclosing the specific particulars of the faults and defaults on the parts of the respondents leading to infringement of any of the legal rights of the petitioner. The present one has not been filed as a Public Interest Litigation and whatever has been stated and referred by the petitioner hardly makes out a case for issuance of writ, order or direction at his instance. The allegation as levelled by the petitioner are of uncertain nature and difficult it is to even find the exact particulars in relation to such allegations too. They are neither directed against the particular officer nor any such officer has been joined a party to this petition who has allegedly ‘prompted’ the failure of system or whose ‘apathy’ is complained against or who was ‘suspected’ to be involved in the alleged ‘scam’. The petitioner has chosen to refer to some of the representations made either by some other person or by Krishi Mandi Vyapar Sangh, Sardarshahar raising grievance about some of the illegalities committed by some of the firms and in a cryptic manner has referred such persons as his “associates”'; and then, with reference to some bits and pieces 6 of the facts relating to default by certain firms; and further with reference to some of the newspaper reports, the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition without specifically disclosing infringement of any of his legal right. The entire writ petition contains nothing but vague and uncertain averments with certain chosen words of fraud, scam, corruption but without any particulars and specification. This is apart from the fact that before filing this writ petition, the petitioner himself seems not to have even made a representation to the authorities concerned. The representation as referred in the writ petition (Annex. 8) was sent by some other person who had called upon the authorities in the Agriculture Marketing Department to take appropriate action and else he would be representing the matter to the Chief Minister and would be filing a Public Interest Litigation. This Court is unable to find any reason or justification that the petitioner would refer to such complaints and representations and choose to maintain a personal interest litigation like that of the present writ petition on their basis. The petitioner has suggested the specious ground that there has been loss to the public exchequer but, for the vague averments and the grounds as suggested, this Court is unable to extend a locus standi to the petitioner so as to maintain a writ petition in the manner and form it has been presented. This apart, the official respondents have pointed out in their reply to the show cause notice various facts and 7 circumstances including the one that the Mandi in question is particularly related with barani land and agriculture produces are available depending on the rains and consequently the business activities are also co-related with such productions. The respondents have pointed out that the Mandi is having seasonal business activities; that during Kharif and Rabi crops, the traders do carry out their activities in the main Mandi Yard and thereafter, when supply slows-down, they return to the old market and during drought conditions, they were carrying out their activities in the old market. It has also been pointed out that various facilities are yet to be completed in the new Mandi yard. The respondents have further submitted that the averments as taken by the petitioner are devoid of any particularity or basis and that appropriate action has been taken after due inquiry against the defaulting firms. As to which firm has been defaulter and to what extent, was obviously a matter to be considered by the respondents and they have been shown having taken action against five of the firms for recovery of over-dues of mandi tax. The petition remains totally bereft of logic and substance and does not merit admission. Noteworthy further it is that in this writ petition, the petitioner earlier chose to implead certain firms as respondents Nos. 5 to 11 but then, moved an application (IA No. 4182/2008) for striking out the respondents Nos.7, 8, 10 8 and 11 from the array of parties with the submissions that they were not the necessary parties. Though this application was kept pending to be considered at the time of admission but going by such application and removing such private respondents from the array of parties would only lead to a serious question as to against whom the petitioner seeks to state and maintain his complaint? Viewed from any angle, this writ petition, not making out any case for interference, does not merit admission and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/