The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a PIL filed with the prayer to register an FIR against private respondents.

The PIL was filed by Radha Sahu with the prayer to register an FIR for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC read with Section 5(1)(d) and 13 (1) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be registered. The petitioner further sought directions to the State Government to take appropriate departmental action against the respondents.

In reply to the PIL, the respondents contended that the petitioner had filed a complaint with higher police officers to register an FIR against the private respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhnadon on 25.3.2013. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in the petition. 

The Judicial Magistrate First Class has even by his order dated 25.3.2013 forwarded the matter to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Chhapra, District Seoni, for registration of offence under Section 156(3) of CrPC. Thereafter, a regular FIR for offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468/34 of IPC as Crime No.21/2013 was registered on 3.2.2013 against the Private Respondents.

It is submitted that all these facts have been suppressed by the petitioner in the PIL. In fact, after the investigation was completed and challan was about to be filed, the Private Respondents filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case in which an interim order was passed on 4.9.2013.

Also Read: A Case of Vaccine Inequity

The  Government Advocate has submitted that the FIR in the  case was quashed by order of the MP High Court on 4.5.2016. However, liberty was given to the Magistrate to pass an appropriate order on the basis of observations made by the High Court. It appears that the petitioner who was the complainant in the case, had herself filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint, Government Advocate added.

The Jabalpur Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla dismissed the PIL while observing that petition cannot be said to be bonafide PIL.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the authorities concerned to recompute the marks of Civil Judge Class-2 (Entry Level) Online Preliminary Exam – 2019 and prepare a fresh list of the candidates who are eligible to appear in the main examination.

The Petitioner Saumya Gupta and others have prayed for a direction to the respondents to recompute the marks obtained by all the candidates who had appeared in Civil Judge Class-2 (Entry Level) Online Preliminary Exam – 2019 (Phase II).

The Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that MP High  Court by order dated 14.07.2021 passed in WP No.11049/2021 had appointed a Committee of two retired High Court Judges for the purpose of re-examining the model answer sheet of the questions about which the grievance was raised in those Petitions and had directed the respondents to prepare a fresh select list for permitting the candidates to appear in the main examination on the basis of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Mongia vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4795/2012 by order dated 28.05.2012 but the respondents have not recomputed the marks of all the candidates and have not given full effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Mongia(supra).

Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the cut-off marks of 115 of the original list of unreserved candidate has not been changed whereas if full effect is given to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Mongia(supra) then the cut-off marks will come down and the petitioner No.1 (Saumya Gupta)  and other petitioners who have obtained 114 marks or slightly less marks will also be included in the list of candidates eligible to appear in the main examination.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh HC directs state govt to determine extents of wards in accordance with MP Municipal Corporation Act

Anshuman Singh, Counsel for the respondents has informed the Court that since there was some difficulty in giving full effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Mongia(supra), therefore, the Review Petition No.633/2021 was filed before the M.P. High  Court and on the basis of decision of Review Petition, recomputation of marks will be done by giving full effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Mongia(supra).

The Jabalpur Division Bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava  and Justice Vishal Dhagat after hearing  counsel for the parties and persuading the record noted that the connected Review Petition No.633/2021 has been decided by the High Court on August 24, by a separate order. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute that on the basis of the order passed by the High Court in the Review Petition, now recomputation of marks will be done.  Such a recomputation will take care of the grievance of the Petitioners herein.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses plea questioning mining activity in Jabalpur

“Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to recompute the marks on the basis of the order passed in the Review Petition No.633/2021 today by giving full effect to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Mongia(supra) and prepare a fresh list of the candidates who are eligible to appear in the main examination,” the order reads.

It is pertinent to note that in the Review Petition No.633/2021  is seeking review of the order dated 14.07.2021 passed in WP No.10070/2021. The last line of para 21 of the order of the High  Court dated 14.07.2021 prohibiting the additional candidates who have obtained less marks than the prescribed marks, is coming in the way of the review petitioners in giving full effect to the final direction in the order of the High Court to prepare select list on the basis of the judgment in the case of Pallav Mongia(supra).

The last line of para 21 reads-

“We make it clear that no additional candidate who has obtained marks less than the prescribed minimum marks can be permitted to appear in the main examination.” On August 24, High Court allowed the Review Petition and deleted the last sentence of para 21 of the order dated July 14, 2021.

A petition has been filed in the Chhattisgarh High Court on the issue of increasing the height of the road by the Public Works Department (PWD).

The petition was filed by Nitin Singhvi, a resident of Raipur, alleging that PWD is increasing the height of the roads by several feet by topping the road with a fresh layer of bitumen.

According to the petition, doing this every three-four years by the Municipal Corporation and Public Works Department in the name of renewal has increased the height of roads in urban areas by two to three feet over the last 25 years.

The petitioner stated that earlier the Division Bench of the MP High Court while hearing a public interest litigation in this case against K.K. Palia and others Vs State Of Chhattisgarh, the High Court had ordered in January 2018 that the petitioners should present their problems to the competent authority of the PWD or the city administration.

Based on the decision of the High Court, Singhvi moved an application to the PWD Chief Engineer, Raipur, in March 2019 and in October 2020, alleging the height of the pavement was lower than the height of the road in front of his house and office. But no action was taken by the PWD, the petitioner alleged.

The petitioner informed the Court that B.S. Gupta, the then Consultant of PWD and retired Chief Engineer from Madhya Pradesh, had told in the letter that engineers of many concerned departments, without proper design, do arbitrary elevation of roads. The height of roads in Raipur city has been increased so much by the PWD and the Municipal Corporation that old dividers disappeared and new dividers had to be built over them. Residents of many colonies are troubled by waterlogging since the road in front of their houses is higher than the plinth of the houses.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court denies child custody to woman accused in husband’s murder

It was also claimed in the petition that after increasing the height of the road continuously, the road got higher and the pavement was down. One has to climb the steps like a ladder on the road. Due to this, the family is facing a lot of difficulty.

A single-judge bench of Justice Gautam Bhaduri considered the issue genuine and has asked the state government to reply in the matter.