Courts On Its Own Motion vs Msedcl Offices, Maha. State ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6108 Bom

                                                         1                                                                      1608pil70.17

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                     PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) NO. 70 OF 2017
                      (Court's on its own motion .v. MSEDCL and others)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram
appearances, Court's orders or directions                    Court's or Judge's Orders
and Registrar's orders.

                              Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
                              Shri A.S. Fulzele, I/c GP for respondent Nos.1, 2, 11, 12 and 13.
                              Shri P.S. Khare, Advocate for respondent No.6.
                              Shri Girish Kunte, Advocate for respondent No.7.
                              Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent Nos.8 and 9.
                              Shri Sumit Bodalkar, Advocate for respondent No.14.

                              CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI  AND
                                                     ARUN D. UPADHYE,      JJ.

16TH AUGUST, 2017.

Heard.

In furtherance of order dated 09th August, 2017 passed by us, the matter has been looked into again. Learned Amicus has filed submissions vide Stamp No. 8756 of 2017 and therein he has suggested composition of a committee to handle the entire situation. He has suggested 19 factors as terms of reference. The names of committee members and their designations are also suggested by him.

In present order, we do not find it appropriate to reproduce the proposed terms of reference. We only note that none of the learned Counsel assisting the Court in this PIL has suggested any modification therein.

Learned Amicus submits formation of committee of nine members with power to it to constitute suitable sub- committees. The names of five persons recommended by the learned Amicus are as under :-

(i) Mr. Jahagirdar, retired IAS Officer and Ex Chairman of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum;

(ii) Mr. A.P. Ganguly, Ex-executive Engineer of MSEDCL and Ex-senior official of SNDL and Crompton Greaves;

                                  (iii)        Mr.   Manohar   Bagde,   retired   Executive   Director   of 



                                          2                                                                      1608pil70.17

                               MSEDCL;

                  (iv)         Mr.   Prakash   Kulkarni,   retired   Executive   Director   of 
                               MSEDCL; and 

                  (v)          Mr.   Abdul   Rauf   Sheikh,   Retd.   Deputy   Divisional 

Commissioner, Nagpur (Maharashtra Development Service).

Respective Counsel for the parties suggest that there should be one retired High Court Judge or Principal District Judge or a Judicial Officer of equal status on committee. According to them, there should also be one experienced Advocate for advising the committee and as its part. Some learned Counsel also recommended that there should be representations of journalist in the area so that the public participation increases. Though few Advocates oppose it and pointed out that it is bias on the part of the reporters which has resulted in wrong reporting, we find that this aspect can be kept open and can be looked into further if occasion therefor arises after receipt of report of the committee. Most of the Advocates, in view of this, suggested that either President or Secretary, Ex-officio of Nagpur Union of Working Journalist may be deputed as part of committee. Insofar as judicial officer or advocate is concerned, they left the nomination to the discretion of this Court. We have stated that list of such officers and advocates available with the Legal Aid Service Authority at Nagpur shall be looked into for that purpose.

It is at once clear that the composition noted by supra, will be the provisional as none of the persons whose names are suggested by the learned Amicus or others name by this Court have been previously consulted in the matter.

We, therefore, direct the Registry of this Court to contact these individuals and ascertain their readiness and willingness to function as part of committee.

For verification of such willingness, 19 points framed by learned Amicus for reference to committee may be shown/sent to the proposed committee members.

Advocate Puranik on behalf of Nagpur Municipal

3 1608pil70.17

Corporation and Advocate Kunte on behalf of Nagpur Improvement Trust submit that the respective authorities were supposed to provide certain data and details on record. However, the list of 141 spots placed on record and supplied by SNDL to MSEDCL does not identify any specific area and as such it is difficult for them to comply with the Court's directions. The Nagpur Improvement Trust has filed Civil Application seeking extension of time of two weeks after the details are received by it.

Learned Amicus has pointed out that Nagpur Improvement Trust has itself after survey placed list of structures falling allegedly below high tension line.

We find that the list supplied by the Nagpur Improvement Trust is only of areas over which it has jurisdiction as planning authority. The list, therefore, is not exhaustive. Insofar as list supplied by SNDL to MSEDCL is concerned, it only outlines the areas through which high tension line passes. The areas, therefore, can be verified by the officers of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and also by the officers of Nagpur Improvement Trust. They are aware of the building sanction granted or rejected by them and they are also aware of the geographical divisions making such areas/wards. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that the material on record is insufficient and hence the directions issued by this Court would not be complied with.

However, taking overall view of the matter , we extend time by two more weeks to enable the authority to comply with the Court's order. Accordingly Civil Application No. 1141 of 2017 is rejected.

S.O. to 18th August, 2017.

                               JUDGE                                                  JUDGE
              *rrg.