JUDGMENT
Nisar Ahmad Kakru, J.
1. Heard. Admit. Since I am not inclined to pass any order prejudicial to the interests of the State, therefore, I find no legal obstacle to finally dispose of the writ petition without calling for returns from the State and its functionaries.
2. What posts, positions and responsibilities the petitioners are saddled with particulars are wanting. Why they are so secretive need not detain the Court because it is gathered from the annexures appended to the writ petition that they are either Storekeepers or Supervisors. Their case is that the authority concerned having failed to destroy the food grains unfit for human consumption involving an amount of Rs. 18,57,024.60, indulgence by the Court is called for so as to reduce the same to ashes.
3. The question that calls for an answer from none other than the petitioners is as to which of their fundamental rights get infringed by alleged failure. Responding to the query learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are at the verge of retirement and delay in destroying the food grains is likely to cause delay in settlement of their pension claims. Contention is urged simply to be rejected, for, as per the age reflected in the writ petition itself the petitioners two in number have still four and ten years respectively to put in.
4. These petitioners claiming to be champions of the public interest are not a alarmed by so huge a loss running in lacs the State exchequer has suffered but they are keen to speed up the process of destruction of food grains. True it is that promptitude in the decision to destroy or otherwise in wanting but this aspect can be taken care of by directing the respondents to look into at their own level. But does such delay give a cause to the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for the relief sought. Answer is in negative. One could appreciate had the petitioners come to the Court with the details of the persons responsible to have delayed the sale of food grains so grossly that it got rotten to the detriment of State exchequer, therefore, action but is not so. Their interest lies apparently in getting the stocks destroyed. It can’t be ruled out that either someone aims at making capital out of such destruction or attempts to go scot free. I say so because the public interest lies in having the stocks intact to help an effective inquiry/investigation into the circumstances which led to delay in sale resulting in a loss to the State, conversely, petitioners seek a direction for destruction of the material. It needs to be placed on record that if the stocks are destroyed before conducting an inquiry/investigation it may result in manifest injustice to the public because non availability of food grains may work as a serious impediment in the process of inquiry. Being of the opinion that availability of food grains may prove helpful for effective inquiry/investigation, the food grains shall have to be protected till then.
5. Reverting to the stance of the petitioners it appears that they have filed this writ petition in the name of public interest to achieve an individual purpose and if the matter is stretched a bit further it may amount to abuse of judicial process. Situation would be different if they would have approached the Court before the event of decay but fact of the matter is that they have come to the Court after food grains are already rotten as averred in the writ petition. Needless to say that public interest is paramount and has to be preferred over the individual interest. It goes without saying that the element of prejudice to the public interest cannot be taken lightly but difficulty for the petitioners is that in the instant case said element is missing, therefore, no cause to maintain this writ petition.
6. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case a direction is called for requiring the State to conduct an inquiry/investigation in the loss caused, of course, in accordance with law expeditiously and without any delay. The respondents shall be at liberty to take a decision with respect to disposal of food grains also in the light of aforementioned observations. Since the writ petition is disposed of without putting the respondents to notice, therefore, order shall be communicated to them by the Registry.