Bombay High Court
Mah.Pradesh Pravasi Mahaasangha ... vs Nagpur Improvement Trust And 3 Ors on 8 June, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp1905.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1905 OF 2004
Maharashtra Pradesh Pravasi Mahasangha,
through its General Secretary,
having its office at C/o Grahak Panchayat
Karyalaya, Near Lendra Park, Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Nagpur Improvement Trust,
Nagpur, through its Chairman,
Near Liberty Cinema, Sadar, Nagpur.
2) Maharashtra State Road Development
Corporation, through its Executive
Engineering, having office near
Patwardhan School, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
3) Public Works Department,
through its Chief Engineer, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4) State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Ministry of Urban
Development Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
None for the petitioner,
Shri S.K. Mishra with Shri R.O. Chhabra, Advocates for respondent
No.1,
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 00:20:06 :::
2 wp1905.04
Shri P.S. Tembhare, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : 08-06-2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Counsel for the petitioner in this matter of which
cognizance has been taken as public interest litigation is absent.
2. The Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is not in a
position to show that service lanes as per Development Control
Regulations have been provided by both sides of ring road. According
to respondent No.1, said work of construction of ring road was handed
over to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 has filed submission and
stated that work of improvement and widening of road from Hingna T
Point to Umred Road mentioned in writ petition has been carried out
by Nagpur Improvement Trust of their own with their own planning
and funds. It is claimed that there was no consent of respondent No.2-
Executive Engineer, MSRDC for said work of Ring Road. Respondent
No.3 has also filed affidavit-in-reply and claimed that respondent No.1
has done work of storm drain without any consultation with it. It is
3 wp1905.04
claimed that for I.R.D.P. work respondent No.1 did not consult
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation or Public Works
Department. Only few parts of ring road were entrusted to Public
Works Department for improvement. In paragraph No.6, it is claimed
that after entrustment of work to it, respondent No.3 made some
improvements on portions specified in letter dated 27-09-1995. It was
before Nagpur Improvement Trust started construction of development
work under I.R.D.P. Programme. It is claimed that respondent No.3 did
not construct portion under I.R.D.P. Office and under control of
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation. It is pointed out
that respondent No.1-Nagpur Improvement Trust has to complete the
work as per standard specifications and thereafter only it can be
handed over to anybody else, however, they have not done so.
3. It appears that matter was taken up by this Court lastly on
08-09-2010 when Nagpur Improvement Trust was directed to produce
photographs taken earlier so as to enable the Court to compare existing
situation. This order has been claimed to be complied with on
14-09-2011 i.e. after more than one year. Executive Engineer of
Nagpur Improvement Trust has filed the pursis with four photographs.
The photographs are not explained in the pursis and only because
4 wp1905.04
counsel for Nagpur Improvement Trust has accepted them to be
photographs placed on record alongwith pursis, one can co-relate the
same with pursis otherwise no officer of Nagpur Improvement Trust
has placed any mark or signature upon those photographs.
4. Signature of Executive Engineer on pursis is also short and
hence, it is very difficult to fasten responsibility on anybody on the
basis of such pursis.
5. We, therefore, find this matter fit to order an enquiry
through a retired District Judge in to the grievance in writ petition. We
direct registry of this Court to appoint a retired District Judge on panel
of Mediators/Arbitrators available with it within four weeks from
today. We also direct respondent No.1- Nagpur Improvement Trust to
provisionally deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- with the registry of this
Court to enable the enquiry officer to proceed further with the exercise.
All the respondents including petitioner shall cooperate with enquiry
officer. The enquiry officer shall after hearing petitioner and
respondents pass further orders about apportionment of expenses
required to be incurred to complete the exercise. At that stage, amount
deposited by respondent No.1 shall be adjusted or returned, as the case
5 wp1905.04
may be. Respondents shall be duly bound to deposit the amount as
ordered and/or cooperate with the learned enquiry officer.
6. The enquiry officer is free to take assistance of technical
expert, if occasion therefor arises.
7. The enquiry officer to complete the exercise within six
months of the receipt of authorisation by him. With directions to
respondents to proceed further as per enquiry report and with liberty
to petitioner to approach again if he finds that enquiry is being
unnecessarily delayed or the respondents are not cooperating or
abiding by outcome, we dispose of writ petition.
JUDGE JUDGE
adgokar
