Ranjan Gogoi, C.J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking interference with resolution dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P -20) of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, whereby a Mini Rose Garden was planned to be built on land covered by Khasra No. 102, Khatauni No. 714, Had bast No. 261, village Giaspura, Tehsil West, Ludhiana. According to the Respondents, there was an earlier decision to construct a sports stadium on the said land which decision has been implemented partially and construction work had begun on the stadium. In this regard, a reference has been to the document enclosed as Annexure P -2 wherein it is recorded that a sum of Rs. 24 lacs (approximately) has already been incurred in connection with the work pertaining to the stadium.
(2.) NO interim restraint was issued by the Court while entertaining the writ petition. It appears that the Respondents had gone ahead with the proposed mini rose garden during the pendency of the writ petition. The latest status report dated 14.02.2011 filed by the Superintending Engineer of the Municipal Corporation indicates that the Mini Rose Garden has already been developed and the total expenditure incurred is close to Rs. 2 Crores. In view of the said event that had occurred during the intervening period, the Court is of the view that, at this stage, no direction for construction of the stadium on the same plot of land where the rose garden has been developed can be issued. However, in the status report dated 14.02.2011, the Superintending Engineer of the Corporation has given details of the alternative places where sports events pertaining to the village can and are being organized. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has pointed out that though it may be too late in the day to order for the construction of the sports stadium, as in the meantime the mini rose garden has been developed., there is ample evidence of misuse of public money in the developmental work pertaining to the rose garden. Specifically, learned Counsel has pointed out that at the time of execution of the initial work of the stadium in the year 2001, the land had been filled up and levelled and therefore, the expenditure incurred under the same head as shown in the status report dated 14.02.2011 would require investigation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has further pointed out that there is an alternative plot in Indira Colony where a sports stadium can be built up. He has, accordingly, prayed for appropriate directions in the matter.
(3.) IN so far as the first issue is concerned, we are afraid that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot assume the role of a fact finding authority in respect of expenses incurred in developing the rose garden and go into the issue whether such expenses were justified or not. If the Petitioners have any grievance in this regard, they should approach the appropriate forum/authority with the requisite materials.;