PIL regarding misappropriation of toilet construction funds closed upon recovery and deposit of unauthorized amounts.

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging the misappropriation of public funds under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Gramin) / Lohia Swachh Bihar Abhiyan in Nawada Village, Saran District.

It was alleged that three members of the same household (private respondents 7, 8, and 9) fraudulently received financial incentives of ₹12,000 each for three separate toilets despite living in the same compound.

An inquiry conducted by the Block Development Officer and the Labour Enforcement Officer revealed that while the toilets were separate, two were built on a single tank, violating departmental guidelines that provide incentives per household/tank.

1. Whether there was a fraudulent withdrawal of public money under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan by the private respondents in collusion with officials.

2. Whether the court should direct an independent investigation and audit of the scheme's implementation in the district.

The Court applied the administrative guidelines governing the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) and Lohia Swachh Bihar Abhiyan, which stipulate that financial incentives of ₹12,000 are provided per household for a toilet built on an individual tank.

It further exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding Public Interest Litigation, focusing on the recovery of misappropriated public funds and the enforcement of monitoring mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in welfare schemes.

The Court evaluated the counter-affidavits filed by the State (Respondents 4 and 5), which admitted that an inquiry had been conducted following the petitioner’s complaint.

The inquiry established that Respondent No. 7 (Ashutosh Kumar Singh) had indeed received an unauthorized incentive for a toilet built on a shared tank with Respondent No. 8.

The Court noted that the authorities had already initiated corrective action by recovering the sum of ₹12,000 from the ineligible beneficiary and depositing it back into the Government Treasury (Account of Swachh Bharat Mission-Rural) on 17.05.2025.

Consequently, the Court found that since the primary grievance regarding the loss of public funds had been redressed through recovery, no further judicial intervention or adjudication was required in the specific matter.

The Court issued a cautionary direction to the State authorities to maintain strict supervision and monitor the scheme with "all attentiveness" during the disbursement of financial incentives to prevent future fraudulent claims.