Read Time: 05 minutes

"Prayers, instead of being specific, are omnibus in nature," noted Allahabad High Court while rejecting a Public Interest Litigation plea which had alleged massive corruption in the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in certain Madarsas during the lockdown in 2020.

The petitioner had alleged that huge public funds were being swallowed by culprits for running Madarsas only on paper and also illegal appointments had been made to the Madrasas in the recent past.

Though the division bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi refused to entertain the plea, it gave liberty to the petitioner, Mohammad Imran, to persuade the appropriate authority stating specific instances of corruption in regard to siphoning of the public funds and illegal appointments, etc. in those Madarsas.

Imran, a farmer by profession, had urged before the court to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the Additional Chief Secretary of Minority Welfare department and others to carry out their lawful duties with honesty in the whole state of U.P.

Court noted that this prayer demanding issuance of such a direction was absolutely vague and general in nature. Court further added that petitioner's second prayer was also vaguely worded. 

In his second prayer, Imran had sought a direction from the Court to the District Minority Welfare Officer/ Madarsa Education Officer, Balrampur to take lawful steps against the culprits who have swallowed the huge public funds in the name of running Madarsas.

Furthermore, Court also pointed out that the petition had been filed annexing two newspapers/magazine reports published in the year 2012. Court found the annexed documents that were there to support Imran's claims, inadequate and insufficient to throw any light on the nature of alleged corruption in the Madarsas.

Therefore, the bench opined that in view of the nature of prayers made in the petition, it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition got disposed of. 

However, the bench noted that it will be open to the petitioner to persuade the appropriate authority, either the District Minority Welfare Officer, Balrampur or any other appropriate authority of the State Government in the Department of Minority Welfare to take action against the alleged corruption. 

Court stated, 

"Once any such an application is made by the petitioner to either of these authorities, it will be the legal obligation upon these authorities to consider the issue and take the matter to its logical end."

Case Title: Mohammad Imran v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Minority Wefare And Ors.