 praying to restrain the construction of an illegal drainage pipe line in the Jabalpur Cantonment.){kind=link}
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) praying to restrain the construction of an illegal drainage pipe line in the Jabalpur Cantonment.
The PIL filed by one Aabid Hussain further prayed that disciplinary action may be taken against all arraying officer/ authority(s) who deliberately failed to protect the law of the land.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is a social worker and being a vigilant citizen of the country, he is pointing out the illegalities being committed by the respondents in carrying out the new construction work of a new drain pipe line for residents of Survey no 165A which is just opposite the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that the same is an unauthorized construction for which he has filed several representations before the respondent authorities for redressal of their grievances but of no consequence. Repeated representations were a futile exercise being done by the petitioner. Therefore, under the compelling circumstances, he has filed the petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation.
Notices have been issued.
The reply has been filed by the authorities along with a separate affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur pointing out the fact that the Board is having every right to carry out the required work. It is contended that the Board is duty bound to provide civic amenities in cantonment area as provided under Section 62 (viii), (x), (xiv) and (xv) of Cantonment Act, 2006 . Section 64(iii) of the Act of 2006 provides for reclaiming unhealthy localities in one of the discretionary functions of the Board.
The Cantonment Board, being a municipal body under Section 10 of the Act of 2006, they are duty bound to maintain hygiene and provide a clean area to enable the citizens to live in hygienic conditions. The Cantonment Board has only done the work on the existing public groups, latrines and drains in such areas which require urgent repair. Also, under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan, providing toilets/public group latrines is the paramount object of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan. The resolution passed by the Cantonment Board for repairing existing public roads and drains etc. was already in existence since decades and in pursuance to the same, the repair work is being carried out by the respondents.
Respondents have further highlighted the duties and discretionary functions of the Board as provided under Section 62, duties of the Chief Executive Officer as provided under Section 25, power of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief as provided under Section 58, special power of the Chief Executive Officer as provided under Section 26 and discretionary functions of the Board as provided under Section 64 of the Act of 2006.
It is contended that in view of the discretionary powers and looking to the need of the repair work, the work has been carried out in pursuance to the resolution passed on the earlier date. On earlier occasion, the petitioner preferred a petition in 2014 which was titled as Aabid Hussain Vs. Union of India and Others and in pursuance to the order passed in the aforesaid petition, a letter was written to the petitioner pointing out that the directions given by the Court have already been complied with.
The petitioner could not dispute the compliance of the order passed in the earlier round of litigation. He has tried to raise a grievance with respect to the action of the respondents by pointing out the provisions of the Act of 2006. It is submitted that there is a huge manipulation of funds and the authorities were not even authorized to carry out the repair work in terms of the cantonment laws. But the fact remains that there is no counter to the response which has been filed by the respondent authorities. In absence of any rebuttal to the reply and considering the fact that there is a specific stand of the respondents accompanied by an affidavit of the responsible officer, it cannot be said that any new construction has been raised. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra noted that the petitioner could not dispute the compliance of the order passed in the earlier round of litigation. He has tried to raise a grievance with respect to the action of the respondents by pointing out the provisions of the Act of 2006.
“It is submitted that there is a huge manipulation of funds and the authorities were not even authorized to carry out the repair work in terms of the cantonment laws. But the fact remains that there is no counter to the response which has been filed by the respondent authorities. In absence of any rebuttal to the reply and considering the fact that there is a specific stand of the respondents accompanied by an affidavit of the responsible officer, it cannot be said that any new construction has been raised. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner,” observed the High Court.