Writ Petition as PIL Inadmissible for Investigating Criminal Allegations of Financial Defalcation and Corruption

The petitioner, claiming to be an "Investigative Journalist," filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging large-scale financial irregularities, tender manipulations, and administrative corruption within Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

The petitioner sought directions for a Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) or CBI inquiry into alleged losses exceeding ₹1.70 crores regarding online portals, vehicle purchases, and printing contracts.

Respondents challenged the petitioner’s locus standi, pointing out that while he claimed to be a journalist, his pleadings stated his qualification was only a matriculation examination.

Respondents alleged the petition was an attempt to extort the University and noted that a similar prayer had been previously disposed of by the Court in a separate case.

The Court applied the principles governing the maintainability of Public Interest Litigation, emphasizing that a petitioner must demonstrate bona fides and a record of social service.

It relied on the doctrine that a person cannot be categorized as a "journalist" solely by reporting matters without requisite professional qualifications or degrees.

The court adhered to the principle of criminal jurisprudence that allegations of defalcation constitute criminal offenses which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt through statutory investigative processes rather than through summary writ proceedings.

The Court scrutinized the petitioner's credentials and found a clear contradiction between the verbal submission (claiming to be an investigative journalist) and the pleadings (listing only a matriculation qualification).

The Court reasoned that merely reporting issues does not suffice to grant one the status of a journalist in the eyes of the law.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide any record of prior work in social causes or public interest, as the instances cited in the petition were restricted to the same University and personal allegations.

Regarding the merits, the Court held that since the allegations pertained to criminal defalcation, a Writ Court is not the appropriate forum to reach a finding of guilt in the absence of a formal investigation.

The Court determined that the petitioner’s remedy lay with specialized authorities dealing with financial crimes rather than the PIL jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the petitioner ought to approach the concerned administrative or investigative authorities for redressal.