Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—These writ petitions in the nature of public interest litigation with common facts and similar prayer raise common questions of law and therefore are being decided finally by this Order. The third writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 2647 (MB) of 2011 is however specific to district Pilibhit with slightly different prayer.

2. The matter concerns the implementation of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Gross abuse and misappropriation of NRHM funds by the State functionaries in a planned and concerted manner is alleged. Inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been prayed for in the affairs of the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh. During the course of hearing it was urged that CBI be directed to conduct preliminary enquiry into the matter from the financial year 2005-06.

The Central Government has also specifically pleaded and pressed for CBI enquiry.

3. Intervention of CBI to conduct an enquiry in the whole State cannot be directed at the instance of bald allegations or public interest litigations or writ petitions preferred with private vendetta. The law in this regard has been succinctly put by the Apex Court in Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 holding that the ultimate test for maintainability of such public interest litigations is whether the allegations have any substance even if made by a political opponent or a person with political differences. In their Lordship’s opinion, for such a petition to be maintainable, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show failure of public duty. Thus, only where after grave consideration of the pleadings in light of the material on record, the Court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out can such a direction to CBI for holding enquiry be given. This conclusion of a prima facie case is a precondition before such a direction is given to CBI as has been settled by the Constitution Bench in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 endorsing its earlier decision in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, (2002) 5 SCC 521.

4. In light of the law settled by the Apex Court, we proceed to address the instant matter. However, it will be useful to note the background of NRHM before we proceed to examine the allegations levelled.

The NRHM was launched on 12.4.2005 with a view to provide accessible, adequate, affordable, accountable and reliable health care to all persons particularly the vulnerable people residing in remote areas. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between the Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh to this effect on 22.11.2006. This MoU governs the implementation of the Mission in the State. Consistent with its objectives it envisages decentralised system of administration fastening on the State the responsibility of administration of the Mission whereas substantial resources were to be provided by the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoH&FW) in contribution with the State.

5. The implementation of NRHM in the State is to be under the overall guidance and supervision of the State Health Mission constituted as per G.O. dated 16.11.2006 with Chief Minister as its ex-officio Chairperson. The State Health Society registered under the Societies Registration Act was constituted by merging all existing state level health societies on 21.2.2007 to carry out functions of the Mission in an additional managerial capacity to the Department of Health & Family Welfare of the State Government. Since the Departments of Health & Family Welfare were two separate departments in Uttar Pradesh; they were therefore merged under the directives of the Central Government. Merger of the two departments was a precondition contingent to the execution of the MoU.

6. The Society’s primary responsibilit