Public Interest Litigations require substantial evidence to establish public interest and must not arise from private motives or vague allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for directing the respondent no. 5 to investigate the fraudulent payment made under “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna-Gramin” (PMAY-G) Scheme in Borio Block, District-Sahebganj.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a social activist and he has no personal interest, either directly or, indirectly, and the issue raised by him is of public interest. The petitioner is an elected representative holding post of "Up-Pramukh", Borio Block and he has raised the present issue relating to the persons belonging to “Paharia” Tribes, who are living in thatched houses and the money withdrawn in their name has been misappropriated.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed several representations to the respondent authorities regarding blatant illegality being committed in allotment of funds under PMAY-G scheme to the beneficiaries and an enquiry was done in that regard, but the outcome of the same was not made public.

4. It is also submitted that even the persons who are having double storied houses, have also been disbursed funds for construction of houses under PMAY-G scheme. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj (the respondent no. 4) wrote a letter to the Additional Collector, Sahebganj-cum-Senior In-charge Officer, Borio (the respondent no. 6) for submitting inquiry report in connection with the irregularities committed by the Block Development Officer, Borio in selection of the beneficiaries under the PMAY-G scheme, however the inquiry report has not been submitted. Though on 09.06.2023, the Secretariat of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand, also took note of the complaint made by the petitioner and wrote a letter to the respondent no. 3 for taking appropriate action in this regard, however no action was taken.

5. It is further urged that the local newspapers highlighted the irregularities committed in disbursement of fund under PMAY-G Scheme mentioning that despite withdrawal of money under that scheme by a middle man, the house of one Babloo Paharia was not constructed and he was living in a thatched house.

6. It is also argued that PMAY-G scheme is a scheme of Central Government meant for constructing houses for poor, but the concerned Block Development Officer has implemented the scheme merely on paper and the actual beneficiary families are constrained to stay in thatched houses even after withdrawal of entire fund.

7. It is further submitted that several complaints were made by different persons including the petitioner to the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka which were redirected to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj vide letter no. 153 dated 26.06.2023 to take further actions. Having not taken any positive step in this regard, the petitioner has been compelled to prefer the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has failed to bring on record sufficient evidence even to prima facie establish the allegation made in the writ petition and as such, the same filed in the form of a PIL is liable to be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

10. Before coming to the merit of the contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 wherein it has been held as under: -

“181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in