 filed alleging that the work of the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad had not commenced though the work order was issued.){kind=link}
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging work on the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad had not started though the work order for it had been issued.
The PIL has been filed by one Arun Sitaram Chambhare.
The advocate for the petitioner submits that a decision was taken to construct the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad. Tenders were floated. Work order was also issued on July 4, 2022. Technical approval was also granted and an amount of Rs 18,06,39,397 was sanctioned for its construction. Abruptly, on September 15, 2022, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra conducted a meeting, wherein, directions were issued that the work of the centralized administrative building should be stopped. The District Collector, on or about October 7, 2022, under the dictate of the Chief Minister, passed an order stopping and/or cancelling the construction work of the centralized administrative building.
It is further submitted by the advocate for the petitioner that the decision was taken by majority of the Gram Panchayats to construct the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad as the same would be more convenient. It was because of the convenience of all and the need existing, the decision was taken to construct the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad.
Construction company does not have any right, power or authority to cancel the same nor could have issued directions to the Collector.
According to the advocate, the Collector also, without assigning any cogent reasons, abided by the dictate of the Chief Minister and cancelled the work of centralized administrative building, the same is illegal, without authority of law and irrational. The advocate for the petitioner submitted that subsequently, the Zilla Parishad has passed a resolution; however, this is under political pressure.
A public interest litigation can be entertained if public interest is involved in the same. In the present case, it is not disputed that the work of the centralized administrative building of the Zilla Parishad has not commenced though the work order was issued. The person, in whose favour the work order was issued, does not have any grievance about the same, observed the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
The Court noted that initially in 2017, a proposal was made to erect Panchayat Samiti building and for the said purpose, even an amount of Rs 4,99,99,000 was sanctioned on January 25, 2019 and a decision was taken to construct the said Panchayat Samiti building. Work order was also issued on September 11, 2019. However, the work of construction of the said building never commenced and the tender amount was returned.
Subsequently, on August 4, 2020, the Sub-Divisional Officer, it appears, opined about availability of land and thought that the same can be acquired for the purpose of construction of a centralized administrative building. On or about March 12, 2021, the land was transferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer under a resolution of the Zilla Parishad for construction of a centralized administrative building.
The Court further noted that approval was sought and accordingly, respondent no. 1 (State Government) on March 4, 2021, granted approval for the said new centralized administrative building. Technical approval was also granted for Rs 18,06,39,397 and a work order was issued. There further appears to be the intimation of the Chief Minister, wherein, a meeting was conducted in his presence and under the directions in the said meeting, the construction of the centralized administrative building was directed to be stopped and on October 7, 2022, the District Collector passed an order cancelling the work of centralized administrative building.
Further the Court noted that on October 14, 2022, the members of the Zilla Parishad, in their General Body Meeting, passed a resolution thereby resolving to construct a Panchayat Samiti building and for that purpose sent a proposal for budgetary sanction of Rs 1613.76 lakh.
It is not a case that the Government and/or Zilla Parishad land is being given to an individual or a private body. Now, the proposal is to construct a Panchayat Samiti building. The resolution was also passed by the Zilla Parishad in the General Body Meeting to construct the Panchayat Samiti building. Any interference at this stage would amount to a stoppage of public work to be undertaken. The Court was not inclined to stop any such public work.
It is not a case that some individual is being benefited and/or the purpose of public work is being changed. The Panchayat Samiti like Zilla Parishad is also an instrumentality of the State. In fact the Panchayat Samiti would be the arm of the Zilla Parishad. In that view of the matter, the members of the General Body of the Zilla Parishad thought it fit to construct the Panchayat Samiti building on the said land. It would have been another thing if because of the interference of the Chief Minister some decisions would have been taken illegally benefiting an individual or private institution. Even the earlier contractor, it appears, has not raised any grievance, the Court observed.