news details |
|
|
| DB dismisses PIL citing political overtones, refuses to interfere in administrative matter | | Construction work on Polytechnic College Pulwama | | JAMMU, June 21: Division Bench (DB) today dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) filed Residents of Begumbagh Kakapora for issuing directions to the department of Technical Education and others to complete construction work of Polytechnic College Begambagh Pulwama as per the approved plan and not to alter execution of the work.
Residents had sought directions against the Technical Education Department to produce record and material pertaining to status of funds allocated so far by the department. It has also been prayed that names of the politicians and authorities who interfered and influenced diversion of funds and stoppage of work of Polytechnic College be disclosed, construction be monitored and supervised by a team of lawyers, journalists and environmental activists.
It has also been prayed that names of the politicians and authorities who interfered and influenced diversion of funds and stoppage of work of Polytechnic College be also disclosed and the construction be monitored and supervised by a team of lawyers, journalists and environmental activists. Division Bench of state High Court Comprising Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice MuzaffarHussain Attar observed that these are administrative decisions which do not call for interference.
Bench also said that there are political overtones in the instant petition.
The bench said that it is not inclined to proceed any further in this matter. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant petition were closed and petition disposed of. While disposing of the PIL, Division Bench observed that the basic dispute appears to be that initially the Polytechnic College was sought to be established in village Begambagh District Pulwama. However, vide communication dated 28.02.2014; it was directed that Government has decided to shift the site of the Polytechnic College to IUST Awantipora at the periphery of the district which is 20 kilometers away from the site earlier identified and approved. There are allegations made in para 10 that the site has been changed on account of rival political groups. It is in the aforesaid broad facts and circumstances that directions have been sought from this Court. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are unable to persuade ourselves to treat the instant petition as public interest litigation. It is nobody's case that Polytechnic College is not being constructed. It is insignificant whether it is being constructed at site A or site B, unless it is shown that it would be totally impracticable for the students to reach the College. These are administrative decisions which do not call for interference much less in public interest litigation. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
