The Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents to complete the Nal Jal Yojna under the scheme of government as soon as possible
The Petitioner further seeks direction to direct the respondents to construct/repair the PCC road of Gram Panchayat Chaudiyar and Khajuha Khurd Tehsil Gurh, District Rewa.
Return has been filed by the respondents, wherein they have stated:-
- That, the answering respondents at the very outset submit that the work of installation/laying down of the pipeline of potable drinking water in Villages Chaudiyar and Khajuha Khurd have already been completed, as is evident from spot Panchnama dt. 24.8.2022.
- That, in so far as contention of the petitioner that in all, 3.9 km of the roads from both the villages have been damaged, same is incorrect and therefore denied. It is submitted that in Village Chaudiyar, 120 Meters of PCC road is damaged, whereas in Village Khajuha Khurd 260 Meters of road is damaged, whereas in Village Chaudiyar, side shoulder of 930 Meter of PCC road has been damaged and in village Khajuha Khurd, 300 Meter of side shoulders of PCC road has been damaged.
- It is pertinent to mention here that for restoration of aforesaid damage of road and its shoulders being caused, appropriate directions have been issued to the contractor …… vide order dated 26.8.2022 to carry out work of restoration of the damage caused to the road and its shoulders in question within a period of 2 months.
- It would thus be seen that relief claimed by the petitioner to the extent of seeking direction to the answering respondents to complete the work of laying down of the pipeline is concerned, same already stands worked out. However in respect of second relief of restoration of damage caused to the road on account of laying down of pipeline, same would be undertaken within a period of 2 months henceforth, in view of the direction already issued to the contractors.
In view of the same, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra held that the grievance of the petitioner appears to have been answered.