The Allahabad High Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by a farmer to point out corruption in the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in certain Madarsas as the Court noted that the plea contained omnibus prayers. [Mohammad Imran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
A Division Bench of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the prayers sought by the petitioner are omnibus and vague in nature.
"...it is apparent that the prayers, instead of being specific, are omnibus in nature. The prayer to issue such directions is absolutely vague and general in nature," The Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed after perusing the prayers of the PIL.
It may be noted that the PIL contained the following two prayers:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus there by commanding the opposite parties number 1 to 4 to carry out their lawful duties with honesty in the whole state of U.P. within time frame as pleases this Hon'ble Court so that huge public funds swallowed by culprits for running Madarsas only on paper may be recovered from them and they may be prosecuted expeditiously as soon as possible in the interest of justice.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the opposite party No.5 to take every lawful steps immediately against the culprits who swallowed the huge public fund by showing and running Madarsa on paper and who make illegal appointments during lockdown of 2020 for recovery of the said fund from their property and to get them prosecuted in expeditious manner in the interest of justice."
Having perused the prayers of the PIL, the Court observed that to issue direction to the officers to carry out lawful duties with honesty appeared to be absolutely vague. Regarding the second prayer, the Court remarked that the same was vaguely worded.
Some other documents were also annexed, which, in the opinion of the Court, were inadequate and insufficient to throw any light on the nature of alleged corruption in the Madarsas.
Therefore, in view of the nature of prayers made in this petition, the Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition, however, the Court gave the liberty to the petitioner to persuade the appropriate authority, and to bring to their notice the specific instances of corruption in regard to siphoning of the public funds and illegal appointments, etc.
"Once any such an application is made by the petitioner to either of these authorities, it will be the legal obligation upon these authorities to consider the issue and take the matter to its logical end," the Court further added.
Also, the Court gave the liberty to the petitioner that in case he feels aggrieved by delayed investigation in a 2012 FIR (referred in the PIL) registered under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. which is said to be presently conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, he can apprise the Director-General, Economic Offences Wing of such delay.
In case the petitioner makes any such application to the Director-General, Economic Offences Wing, he shall take appropriate decision thereon, with the expedition, added the Court as it disposed of the PIL plea.
.webp)
