'Duty To Produce Basic Proof Of Allegations Not Absolved In PIL': Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea Alleging Govt Officials Of Embezzling Public Funds
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of the allegations levelled by him. A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "Even otherwise we find the petition with long pleadings are long in averments but short in contents. The...
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of the allegations levelled by him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,
"Even otherwise we find the petition with long pleadings are long in averments but short in contents. The allegations made in the petition would require supporting evidence. Even in a public interest petition the petitioner is not absolved of producing at least a basic proof of his allegations."
The present public interest litigation was filed by one Lakhpat Ola, alleging that certain officials of the Government have embezzled public funds by committing irregularities in public works contracts.
The allegations include irregular payments in execution of the construction work of one Gaurav Path at Sikar during which according to the petitioner unauthorized over payments were made.
The court opined that it when it comes to allegations of corruption in public life, it would certainly view the allegations seriously and deal with them with caution. The court added that without any supporting materials and particularly when the reply filed by the Government which covers and denies all averments of the petitioner has remained uncontroverted, courts can't propose to carry this public interest petition any further.
The court observed that since two and half years of filing of the reply, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder disputing any of the averments made in the reply filed by the respondents.
Notably, the state authorities appeared and filed a reply dated 30.08.2019 dealing with each and every allegation of the petitioner and pointing out that the work as per the contract awarded or in some cases the extra work as needed was carried out and payments were made only after due verification and satisfaction of the authorities.
Adv. Saransh Saini appeared for the petitioner while AAG Rajesh Maharshi appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: Lakhpat Ola v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 63