IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16631 of 2010 NAGESHWAR PRASAD YADAV Son of late Bhubaneshwar Prasad Yadav, resident of village Sindhiya, Post Sindhiya, Police Station Naya Ram Nagar, District Munger … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India, New Delhi, 2. The Director, Kendriya Jai Aayog, Room No. 202(5), Sewa Bhawan, Ram Krishna Puram, New Delhi, 3. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna, 4. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna, 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur, 6. The Superintending Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal, Division, Suryagarha, Munger, 7. The Executive Engineer, Works Division No. 5, Chenari, Rohtas, Sasaram, 8. The Superintending Engineer, Project Investigation and Project Preparation Circle, Water Resources, Anisabad, Patna-800002.. … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Nand Lal Kumar Singh and Ms. Mahurita Lata, Advocates For the Union of India: Mr. S.K. Sharma, CGC For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, AAG 11 ----------- 4 21.12.2010 Heard the parties. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by a resident of village Sindhiya in the District of Munger. The grievance of the petitioner is that an Irrigation Project described as Dakra Nala Ganga Pump 2 Nahar and River Project, Munger, was initiated in the year 1978 with an estimate of rupees eight crores, which was later revised to rupees thirty six crores and in spite of a formal inauguration in 1994, the Project still remains incomplete without serving the purpose of providing irrigation facilities to the farmers. It has been submitted that by now the State has spent rupees seventy one crores or more and hence the Project must be completed at the earliest to justify the public money spent by the authorities. Learned counsel for the State as well as Union of India have disclosed that the Project could not become functional due to shifting of course of river Ganga and related problems. It has been submitted that a detailed Project report for revival of the scheme has been prepared and submitted to the Central Water Commission and the fate of the Project depends upon the decision which remains to be taken by the concerned authorities. In the facts of the case, we have no option but to leave it to the decision making process of the authorities. We have noticed that a huge amount of public has been spent and hence to protect public interest, we observe that if 3 the public money has gone down to the drain, the responsibilities must be fixed for such huge wastage. Further decision/approval must be taken in the light of the aforesaid observation so that if further money is to be invested, responsibility for the same must be fixed upon the implementing authority. Lastly, we are of the view that appropriate decision/approval must be finalized without any delay and in any case, within a period of six months. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Let copies of this order be given to learned AAG 11 and learned counsel for the Union of India. SC (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)