Meghalaya High Court · 2022

(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) It is fairly submitted on behalf of the second respondent that a limited affidavit was filed in the court of the first instance, restricted to the locus of the writ petitioner and the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further submitted on behalf of the second respondent that notwithstanding the previous orders of this Court observing that a charge of defalcation was brought against an Article 12 authority, the main thrust of the writ petition was the non-adherence to the standing order pertaining to designated officials being entitled to dispose of claims of certain pecuniary limits.

It is true that the essence of the appellant’s grievance in the writ petition is that notwithstanding the standing order which ought to be adhered to, the practice followed by the second respondent was that lower level officials would be entitled to deal with claims that ought to have been decided upon by higher ranked officials. As to whether there is any defalcation as a result of such practice which is not in accordance with the standing order is a matter that is required to be inquired into. At the very least, there is a possibility of defalcation or misuse of public funds which calls for a scrutiny.

As to the locus of the appellant-writ petitioner, it is too late in the day for the second respondent to insist on the strict rule of locus standi. The manner in which the law has developed in this country permits even a bystander or a passerby to bring to the attention of a constitutional court any grave violation in the functioning of any State or other authority answering to that description in Article 12 of the Constitution which has a possibility of public money being wasted or needlessly expended. Once such matter is brought to the notice of a constitutional court, notwithstanding the status of the petitioning complainant, it is the duty of the constitutional court to make a prima facie inquiry. It is possible that nothing may come out of it and the grievance may be found to be completely out of place or without basis. But the petition ought not to be thrown out without making a preliminary inquiry unless it appears ex facie to be founded on ulterior motive or made with oblique purpose.

Accordingly, the order impugned dated August 30, 2022 in WP (C) No.41 of 2022 is set aside and the writ petition is restored to the board of the Single Bench for it to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law. So as not to delay the matter any further, the respondents to the writ petition, including the second respondent herein, are permitted to file their affidavits-in-opposition to the writ petition within four weeks from date. It is recorded that the Union is represented here.

An affidavit-in-reply may be filed by the petitioner to the affidavits-in-opposition within a week of the receipt thereof.

Nothing in this order will inhibit the Single Bench from deciding the petition in accordance with law.

WA No.36 of 2022 is disposed of without any order as to costs. (W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee) Judge Chief Justice Meghalaya 20.10.2022 Lam DR-PS”