Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD NAJIRversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the allegations lack substance and there is no material to justify further action, leading to the dismissal of the PIL.
Summary
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation alleging that the Nagar Palika Parishad issued two work orders for the same repair work on the same day with different monetary values, suggesting possible defalcation. The petitioner also submitted a representation on 11.08.2026 raising general complaints about the functioning of the Nagar Palika Parishad and sought a direction for the respondent to decide the representation dated 18.08.2026. The respondents explained that the duplicate work orders resulted from a clerical mistake, the earlier order was cancelled on 24.03.2026, and a corrected order was issued, providing supporting documents. The Court found no substantive basis for the allegation of dual work orders and noted the absence of material evidence to investigate the later general complaints. Consequently, the Court concluded that there is no case for further action and disposed of the PIL.
Issues considered
- Whether the issuance of two work orders for the same work with different amounts constitutes a violation warranting judicial intervention.
- Whether the representation dated 11.08.2026 and the general allegations against the Nagar Palika Parishad can be entertained by the Court in the absence of material evidence.
- Whether there is sufficient material on record to direct an enquiry or further action in the present PIL.
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- work order
- procurement
- administrative law
- rectification
- Nagar Palika Parishad
- corruption allegations
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2190 of 2026
Mohammad Najir
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Afreen Shahab, Shahabuddin, Ram
Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sujan Singh
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the
petitioner seeking a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the
representation dated 18.08.2026 moved by him.
2. In the petition, initially a complaint was made on 03.08.2026
(Annexure-1) regarding issuance of two work orders pertaining to the
same work with different amounts essentially seeking to defalcate the
amount. It was indicated that qua work of repair and interlocking from the
house of Zainul Abedin to house of Master Hameedullah two work orders
for Rs.5.83 Lakh and Rs.9.92 Lakh were issued on the same day i.e.
19.03.2026. Whereafter, another representation dated 11.08.2026 has
been made making several general complaints regarding the working of
the Nagar Palika Parishad and on 18.08.2026 a reminder in this regard
was sent.
3. When the matter came up before this Court, noticing the allegations
pertaining to issuance of two work orders for the same work with
different amounts, the respondents were directed to obtain instructions in
the matter.
4. Detailed instructions have been produced on behalf of the
respondent/Nagar Palika Parishad inter-alia pointing out that due to
mistake instead of indicating a different work, the same work was
indicated as the contract was given to the same contractor who was L-1 in
WPIL No. 2190 of 2026
2
both the contracts and a rectification was done on 24.03.2026 whereby
the order dated 19.03.2026 was cancelled and a new work order was
issued. Documents, in support of the said contention, have been placed on
record.
5. In view of the above fact situation, apparently there is no substance in
the allegations made in the petition qua the issuance of two work orders
for the same work.
6. So far as the representation dated 11.08.2026 is concerned, the same
pertains to allegations, for which apparently no material is available on
record for directing any enquiry by this Court.
7. Allegations totally general in nature regarding working of the Nagar
Palika Parishad have been made, which apparently cannot be investigated.
8. In view of the above fact situation, no case for any further action in the
present Public Interest Litigation is made out. The same is, accordingly,
disposed of.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
September 29, 2026
nd/Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
NISITH DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…