CUTTACK: In a strongly worded order, the Orissa High Court dismissed a PIL for misusing the avenue and slapped a Rs 2 lakh fine on the petitioner.
The division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman observed that it was “a classic example of misuse and abuse of the PIL not only by suppressing the material facts but also adopting such circuitous route to achieve the goal which was denied at an earlier point of time”.
Finding no public interest involved, bench imposed the fine with a direction for the money to be deposited with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA) within three weeks. The amount, the court directed, shall be used for providing better facilities and amenities in different juvenile homes, run by the government or NGOs.
The petitioner Pabitra Parida, proprietor of a Cuttack-based private company, had sought a court-monitored techno-financial audit into alleged corruption by an engineer of the mechanical division at Hirakud. The allegations were based entirely on purported “credible information” provided by a proprietor of a steel and fabrication unit, who claimed that the engineer had indulged in massive corruption and misappropriation of public funds.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Soubhagya Swain projected the petitioner as a whistle-blower against massive corruption prevalent in the mechanical division at Hirakud. However, the state government, represented by additional government advocate Debashis Tripathy, placed records showing that the allegations originated from the same proprietor, who had already approached the competent authorities with identical complaints.
Tripathy informed the court that the proprietor had earlier taken the same allegations to the Lokayukta, prompting an enquiry. The Enquiry Committee, ultimately opined that the allegation made by the said person before the Lokayukt was concocted and manufactured to settle his personal scores and the matter was directed to be dropped, he said.
Despite the finding, the complainant again approached the Lokayukta, leading to another direction for enquiry. The engineer concerned challenged this order, and the high court and got an interim stay on February 12, 2024 which is still in force.
The bench observed that the petition was filed without disclosing these vital details and remarked that the PIL cannot be used as a tool to subvert or overcome with the judicial orders passed by the competent court.