SHRI S.D. LYNGDOH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed 3 (three) PIL petitions in relation to three different roads work for which, the Government has entered into contract with the respective contractors. It is alleged that the construction works have not been properly carried out and even some were left incomplete and being the matter relating to huge public money, would call for thorough investigation.

(2.) In the PIL petitions, the respondents have been called upon to submit their counter affidavits. Counter affidavits have already been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. H Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, submits that he shall be filing the respective counter affidavits during the course of the day. In relation to the counter affidavits filed, or to be filed by the respondents, the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within four weeks. In these PIL petitions, the petitioner has now moved miscellaneous applications with the submissions, inter alia, that the contractors had earlier abandoned the works and only after filing of these PIL petitions, the works have been resumed with haste and in order to avoid enquiry. With these submissions, it is prayed that release of money by the Government for the resumed works may be stayed and the State Government be directed to blacklist the contractors. The submissions as made in these applications are not convincing.

(3.) As to whether any enquiry in relation to the allegations as made in the PIL petitions is to be ordered or not is a matter to be examined in the respective PIL petitions. But then, if any work is being executed, we see no reason to have the same stalled or to order freezing of funds or stoppage of payment. It goes without saying that if any payment is made in these matters, the same would be properly accounted for by the Government. As to whether the payment has rightly been made or not; and as to whether any enquiry is required or not; and if any enquiry is required, the extent and scope thereof, shall all be the matters to be considered in the PIL petitions. However, as observed above, at the present stage there is no reason to pass any interim order at the instance of the petitioner in terms prayed for.