AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 219 wordsThe petitioner in this Public interest Litigation, as he claims, desires that certain enquiries be set up on whatever as cording to him, are irregularities wit his the Department of Agriculture. In this petition the petitioner has arrayed the Chief Secretary. Finance Secretary, Agriculture Secretary, Direction Agriculture, District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, as party respondents, as well as three named respondents.
This Court has already expresses its views in a matter Narendra Kumar Singh Vs. Sate of Bihar and Others, that a there be allegations to the effect that governmental function needs scrutiny. (sic) put it mildly, the nothing stops the citizens. in requiring the elected representative (sic) for that matter any elected representative to put in a question at the legislature (sic) the appropriate time. Should this be done. then the department of the Government concerned is obliged to return an answer, placed at the house. The High Court cannot be utilised to arrange for answers to citizens in a Public Interest Litigation when no effort has been made to seek answers from the Government at the forum where these answers are to be given first.
In the circumstances, this Court is laying this petition to rest as the situation is not that the petitioner is without remedy provided under the Constitution. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
