Bombay High Court
Ruju R. Thakker vs State Of Maharashta And 11 Ors. ... on 8 October, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-OS:15621-DB
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.6 OF 2019
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.71 OF 2013
SHABNOOR Ruju R. Thakker
AYUB Of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant
PATHAN
Digitally signed by having her Office at C/o 114,
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2024.10.08
1st Floor, Veena Chambers,
14:32:34 +0530
Opposite BSE, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra
Original Respondent No.1
through the Chief Secretary
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain having his
Office at 6th Floor, Main Building
Mantralaya, Dr. Madam Cama Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 032
2. Praveen Pardeshi,
Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner
of Greater Mumbai Headquarter,
Original Respondent No.3
CST, Mumbai - 400 001
3. Dr. Ramaswami N., Commissioner,
Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal
Corporation, Original Respondent No.5
having his office at Plot No.1, Near
Killegaothan, Palmbeach Junction,
Sector 15 A, CBD, Belapur,
Navi Mumbai - 400 614
4. Govind Bokde,
Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivali
Municipal Corporation having his
office at beside Dena Bank, Near
Shankarrao Chowk & Shivaji Chowk
Kalyan City, Thane - 421 301
1
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2024 01:09:55 :::
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
5. Baliram Pawar,
Commissioner, Vasai Virar Municipal
Corporation, Original Respondent No.7
having Head Office at Opp. Virar Police
Station, Bazaar ward, Virar East,
Maharashtra - 401 305
6. R. A. Rajeev,
Metropolitan Commissioner, Mumbai
Metropolitan Regional Development
Authority, Original Respondent No.12
having his office at E-Block, C-14 & 15,
E Block BKC, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East, Mumbai,
Maharashtra - 400 051
7. Sanjay Bhatia,
Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust
Original Respondent No.14 having his
office at Port House, Shoorji Vallabhdas
Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001
8. V. R. Naik,
Secretary (Roads) Public Works
Department, Original Respondent No.2
having his office at Mantralaya, Mumbai
Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru
Square, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 032
9. C. P. Joshi,
Secretary (Roads), Maharashtra State
Road Development Corporation Ltd.
Original Respondent No.13, having his
office at. Nepean Sea Road, Priyadarshini
Park, Mumbai - 400 036
10. Sanjeev Jaiswal, Commissioner
Thane Municipal Corporation, Original
Respondent No.4 having his office at
New Administrative Building, Mahapalika
Bhavan, Almeda Road, Chandan Wadi,
Pachpakhadi, Thane West, Thane,
Maharashtra - 400 602
2
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2024 01:09:55 :::
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
11. Balaji Khatgaokar,
Commissioner Mira Bhayander Municipal
Corporation, Original Respondent No.6
having his office at Talao Road,
Bhayandar East, Prabha Karyalaya, No.3,
4, Kharegaon, Mira Bhayandar,
Maharashtra - 401 105
12. Sanjay Barve
Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic)
Original Respondent No.8 having his
Office at Mumbai Traffic Bench, 87
Pochkanwala Road, Worli Contemnors/
Mumbai - 400 030 Respondent
...Nos.1 to 12
13. Akshay Vani
Original Respondent No.10 having his
office at 410, Yusuf Building Veer
Nariman Road, Mumbai - 400 001
14. Ketan Chotani
Original Respondent No.11 having
his office at Room No.6, 1st Floor
Botawala Building, Hornimon Circle
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001
15. SGS India Pvt. Ltd.
Original Respondent No. 15 having his
office at SGS House, 4B, Adi
Shankaracharya Marg, Vikhroli (West),
Mumbai - 400 083
...Respondents
Mr. Raju R. Thakker, Petitioner in-person is present.
Mr. Jamshed Mistry, Amicus Curiae with Ms. Ronita
Bhattacharya Bector present in PIL No.71 of 2013
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joel Carlos and
Ms. Oorja Dhond i/by Mr. S. K. Sonawane for respondent-
BMC.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A.
Chandurkar, Addl. Government Pleader and Ms. R. A.
Salunkhe, AGP for the respondent-State.
3
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2024 01:09:55 :::
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge for respondent No.3 (NMMC).
Mr. A. S. Rao for respondent No.4-Kalyan Dombivali
Municipal Corporation.
Ms. Swati Sagvekar for respondent No.5-Vasai Virar City
Municipal Corporation.
Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aparna D.
Vhatkar for respondent No.6-MMRDA.
Mr. Ajay Fernandes with Ms. N. D. Motiwala i/by Motiwalla &
Co. for respondent No.7.
Mr. Prashant Chawan i/by Ms. Reshmarani Nathani for
respondent No.9-MSRDC.
Mr. Ram S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Mandar Limaye for
respondent No.10-TMC.
Mr. N. R. Bubna for respondent No.11-Mira Bhayander
Municipal Corporation.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for respondent No.20 in PIL No. 71 of
2013.-Nashik Municipal Corporation.
Ms. Pooja V. Bendkule i/by Mr. I. M. Khairdi for respondent
No.25.
Mr. Shriram Kulkarni with Pranjal M. Khatavkar for
respondent Nos.54 to 59, 253, 357 and 358 in PIL No.71 of
2013.
Mr. Umesh Mankapure with Ms. Stefy J. Dias for respondent
Nos.324 and 342.
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Ms. Sweta Shah, Mr. Krushna
Jaybhay, Mr. Gaurav Sahane for respondent-Pune Municipal
Corporation, respondent Nos.23 and 267.
Mr. Shubham Vasekar with Mr. Vikas Somawanshi h/f Mr.
Vaibhav Ugle for respondent No.260.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON JULY 12, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 8, 2024
4
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2024 01:09:55 :::
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
JUDGMENT:
(Per Amit Borkar, J.)
1. This contempt petition arises from alleged non-
compliance by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal
Corporation, Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation, Thane
Municipal Corporation, Meera Bhayandar Municipal
Corporation, and officers of the State of Maharashtra with the
order dated 24th February 2018 and 12th April 2018 passed
by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.71 of 2013
whereby the respondents were directed to complete work of
maintenance of road, display of information for digging work,
establishment of redressal grievance mechanism, manhole
safety, quality assurance in road contracts, and set up
monitoring of grievance mechanism.
2. Taking cognizance of letter dated 24th July 2013
authored by a Judge of this Court, the Chief Justice initiated
suo-moto public interest litigation by issuing notices to the
respondents. Subsequently, several orders were passed from
time-to-time addressing various issues, including issues
referred in order dated 20th May 2015 whereby interim
directions were issued. This Court on 24th February 2018 and
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
12th April 2018 recorded conclusions to the following effect:
a) Right to have streets and footways in reasonable
condition is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Citizens have a right to use public
streets and footways without obstructions;
b) The primary purpose of constructing streets is to allow
for vehicular passage, and the purpose of footways being part
of the streets, is to allow citizens to walk and travel freely.
Any obstruction that prevents citizens from enjoying this right
to passage constitutes violation of their fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
c) Corresponding obligation on the authority is to ensure
that streets and footways are maintained in a condition that
allows citizens to use them effectively. Authorities must
establish a Grievance Redressal Mechanism enabling citizens
to report any violation of their rights. Citizens are entitled to
expect prompt and effect action from municipal authorities to
resolve such complaint;
d) If a citizen suffers injury due to the poor condition of
streets arising from negligence by municipal or other
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
authorities, they have a right to seek compensation from the
State or local authorities responsible for street maintenance.
In cases where poor street conditions result in loss of life due
to negligence, the legal representatives of deceased have
right to claim compensation from the responsible authorities
in accordance with law;
3. In the light of principles stated above, this Court issued
various directions which can be summarized as below:
i) Maintenance of roads: All relevant authorities, including
municipal corporations and the State Government, are
responsible for maintaining streets and footpaths in good
condition, ensuring that the potholes are filled scientifically as
ongoing project;
ii) Display of information for digging work: Authorities must
display information at digging sites, including agency's
contract details, extent of work, completion period, and
restoration time-lines;
iii) Grievance Redressal Mechanism: A mechanism must be
established for the citizens to file complaint regarding street
conditions through various channels, including written
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
complaints, toll-free numbers, dedicated websites and cell
phone numbers. This mechanism should be operational year-
round;
iv) Tracking complaints: A system will be implemented to
track actions taken on complaints, with reports uploaded
within three weeks of receipt. Compliance photographs should
also be shared online;
v) Centralized mechanism: The State Government will
generate a centralized grievance mechanism for all municipal
corporations and planning authorities to streamline complaint
handling;
vi) Publicity: The authorities must widely publicize the
grievance mechanism through newspapers, strategic locations
and electronic media by August 1, 2018;
vii) Open manhole safety: Measures must be taken to
protect open manholes and barricades and warning signs to
prevent accidents;
viii) Quality assurance in road contracts: The State
Government will establish policies ensuring quality in road
construction contracts and technical specifications for material
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
and methods used.
ix) Compliance reporting: Municipal Councils and other
authorities must submit compliance reports quarterly to the
State Government, which will compile this report for Court
review;
x) Monitoring of grievance mechanism: Designated officers
will monitor the grievance redress mechanism to ensure
timely responses to the complaints;
xi) Traffic Police coordination: The State Government is
required to direct traffic police regarding compliance with
safety measures by July 15, 2018;
xii) Regular updates to Courts: Detailed compliance report
must be presented to the Court regularly, including
information on received complaints and resolutions.
4. The present contempt petition is filed on the ground that
despite lapse of stipulated period the maintenance of roads
and their construction was not completed. The directions
issued against the State Government, Municipal Corporations
and other authorities regarding maintenance of streets, roads
and footways, filling potholes, setting up Grievance Redressal
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
Mechanism and ensuring adequate precautions in case of
open manholes, amongst others have not been complied with.
The contempt petition alleges that the respondents have
willfully disobeyed these directions, particularly regarding
maintenance of roads and footpaths, failure to implement
Grievance Redressal Mechanism, failure to fill potholes
scientifically and promptly, inadequate precautionary
measures for open manholes etc.
5. The respondents by filing their affidavits-in-reply
claimed that they have complied with directions issued in the
orders dated 24th February 2018 and 12th April 2018.
6. Respondent No. 1, through the Chief Secretary, has
submitted an affidavit-in-reply, stating that the initial delay in
complying with the directions issued by this Court was due to
the nationwide lockdown and the pandemic situation
prevailing in the State. However, it was asserted that a
meeting of all stakeholders was convened in the Chamber on
6th October 2021 to inform all concerned parties about the
need to comply with the Court's order. All stakeholders were
directed to submit their compliance reports to the Urban
Development Department regarding specific issues outlined in
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
the communication dated 6th October 2021. Out of 27
Corporations, 15 submitted their compliance reports, and the
Department is following up with the remaining 12 to obtain
their reports. In an affidavit-in-reply dated 27th September
2023, Respondent No. 1 provided a point wise compliance
report from the Urban Development Department with respect
to each of the directions issued by this Court.
7. Respondent No.2 - Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (MCGM) in its reply stated that the total length of
road in the city of Mumbai is 2050 kms., out of which 1224
kms. Of road has been concretized. Concretization of 356 kms
of road is in progress, and tender of road having length of 389
kms have been floated and, therefore, balance length of road
to be concretized is only 81 kms. The delay in concretization
of road has been explained by stating that due to monsoon
work cannot be carried out and failure of some contractors to
satisfactorily complete the work, against whom action had
been taken to terminate their contract, and fresh tenders
have been issued. It is stated that the MCGM has prepared
Uniform Footpath Policy which is available on MCGM portal.
Potholes have been filled up by using conventional methods of
"Pothole Filling by Coldmix.. Mastic (Asphalt)". A budget of
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
Rs.2 crore per ward per annum was allotted for unforeseen
work as well as filling up of potholes. The cost incurred for
filling up potholes by mastic was Rs.161 crore. It has
nominated a dedicated responsible officer in every electoral
ward with dedicated mobile sim. It is also stated that in major
activity of road digging, boards displaying name of work,
contractor, time period, name of concerned staff with contract
number as per tender condition are in place. It is stated that
Grievance Redressal Mechanism of MCGM is already
functional. Facility is available throughout the year and
mybmcpotholefixit App is already in use for facilitating the
citizens in lodging complaints and creation and installation of
disable friendly website was under consideration. The system
of tracking is already made functional. WhatsApp number of
road engineer of 24 wards are published in all leading
newspapers and displayed on major street's prominent
locations of all wards. Uniform Footpath Policy is being
prepared and is being implemented in view of provisions of
Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which is already
available on MCGM portal. Protective grills are provided at
flooding spot manholes and remaining manholes protective
grills are being provided through concerned wards which are
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
replaced on timely basis including protective grills identified
by Advocate Commissioners. The work of Grievance Redressal
Mechanism is monitored by the MCGM head office and
respective head of departments. All complaints received are
attended on daily basis. It has also given short term and long
term measures regarding concretization of roads. Details of
manholes replaced due to damage or theft or report have
been provided in paragraph 79 of the affidavit in reply dated
3rd November 2023, which is as under:
Sr. No. Year 2020 Year 2021 Year 2022
Jan. 2023
to August
No. of replaced 458 (SO) 564 (SO) 836 (SO) 674 (SO)
covers due to 383 (SWD) 315 (SWD) 305 (SWD) 254 (SWD)
damage or theft
No. of repaired 374 (SO) 390 (SO) 503 (SO) 269 (SO)
robohole covers / 153 (SWD) 176 (SWD) 230 (SWD) 227 (SWD)
frames.
8. In support of the averments in the affidavit-in-reply, the
respondent No.2 has annexed photographs showing status of
road before and after the order. The respondent No.2,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition.
9. Respondent No.3 filed affidavit-in-reply on 4th January
2023 and 8th September 2023 indicating compliance with the
directions of this Court. As and by way of reply to non-
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
compliance chart submitted by the petitioner, it is stated by
respondent No.3 that Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
(NMMC) has launched Daksh App to monitor progress of
ongoing projects in NMMC. Contractors responsible for annual
maintenance upload citizens complaint and site photographs
to NMMC Daksh App. The Municipal Corporation Engineering
Department engineer review the photographs and actual work
at site granting online approval through App. Only after this
approval, the contractors proceeds with specified work. After
completing the work as per the complaint, the contractor
uploads photographs of the unfinished work on NMMC Daksh
App. The Engineering Department inspects and approves the
work through the App. 108 kms of roads in MIDC area have
been fully concretized, and these roads are free from
potholes. While granting permission for road excavation, it is
made mandatory to put conditions on giving name and
address of working company and their contact details, date of
commencement of work and completion of work, duration of
completion of work and the length of the work. It has
established grievance portal to facilitate filing of complaint
concerning roads within municipal area. An additional
WhatsApp number has been introduced for this purpose.
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
Dedicated website is also made available for grievance of
citizens. Ward-wise site supervisors have been appointed and
manholes covered on sewers are regularly inspected and in
case of theft, such manholes are immediately replaced by
annual maintenance contractor.
10. Respondent No. 4, a Municipal Corporation, submitted
an affidavit through its Engineer, indicating compliance with
the directions issued by this Court. It was stated that the
directions have been substantially complied with, and only a
small portion of the road construction work remains
incomplete. An explanation for incidents that occurred during
the pendency of the contempt petition has been provided
through an affidavit dated 27th September 2023.
11. Respondent No. 5, a Corporation, submitted an affidavit
through its Assistant Municipal Commissioner, explaining the
actions taken in response to incidents that occurred during
the pendency of the contempt petition. It was further stated
that the jurisdiction of the Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation
spans an area of 3.1 square kilometers and has a population
of 24 crores. The road network covers approximately 526.45
kilometers. Annual tenders for the repair of chambers and
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
chamber covers are published before the monsoon season. It
was noted that a dedicated website has been made
operational for citizens to lodge complaints up to 2023-2024.
The contractor appointed by Respondent No. 5 has replaced
approximately 4,662 RCC chamber covers and 1,471 MS
chamber covers. A total of 905 potholes covering an area of
15,704 square meters have been filled with paver blocks or
tar, while 2,395 potholes covering 75,071.76 square meters
have been filled with asphalt. An amount of ₹14.99 crores has
been spent on the maintenance of chamber covers. A detailed
chart indicating compliance with each of the Court's directions
was submitted along with the affidavit-in-reply.
12. Respondent No. 6 submitted an affidavit, through the
Superintending Engineer, on 25th November 2022, detailing
the steps taken to comply with the Court's directions. The
affidavit included a chart indicating the actions taken for
pothole repairs, along with photographs. The chart also noted
the number of identified potholes and those repaired. It was
further communicated to Respondent No. 2 to take over the
maintenance of the Western Express Highway and Eastern
Express Highway. The details of a website for complaint
management and the publicity given to it were placed on
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
record. Additionally, it was stated that approximately 157
complaints received by the MMRDA control room had been
appropriately addressed. Further progress in compliance with
the Court's directions was submitted in an affidavit dated 8th
June 2024, outlining in detail the steps taken to comply with
the Court's order.
13. Respondent No. 7 submitted an affidavit-in-reply
through the Assistant Executive Engineer, stating that it
maintains approximately 66.9 kilometers of roads in Mumbai
within its jurisdiction. It was further stated that road
maintenance work is undertaken every two years, as reflected
in the submitted chart. The present condition of the roads and
the status of compliance with the work were also provided.
Through affidavits dated 11th January 2023 and 13th
February 2024, Respondent No. 7 placed on record details of
compliance with each of the directions issued by this Court.
14. Respondent No. 8, through the Secretary (Roads), Public
Works Department (PWD), filed an affidavit-in-reply stating
that the total length of motorable roads in the State of
Maharashtra is approximately 323,108 kilometers, of which
98,189 kilometers are under the jurisdiction of the PWD. It
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
was noted that the Central Government is responsible for the
maintenance of national highways, while rural area roads are
maintained by the rural development department. The PWD
operates a functioning website for citizens to lodge
complaints, which is active and operational. The action plan
for filling potholes on major state highways was to be
completed by 3rd November 2022, and on major district roads
by 31st December 2022. The annual maintenance program for
these roads began per a letter dated 5th April 2022, following
the completion of the tender process, with work orders issued
and work already underway. In an affidavit dated 14th June
2023, the Deputy Secretary of the Urban Development
Department filed a compliance report for 16 Municipal
Corporations that had not submitted their reports in response
to the earlier affidavit.
15. Respondent No. 9, through the Executive Engineer,
submitted an affidavit-in-reply stating that roads with a total
length of 37.36 kilometers fall under its jurisdiction, and
necessary steps have been taken for their maintenance. The
potholes on these roads have been repaired, and it was noted
that maintenance is an ongoing process aimed at keeping the
roads in optimal condition. It was further stated that during a
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
meeting held on 20th September 2022 under the
chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, a decision
was made to transfer the responsibility for maintaining all
flyovers and related structures within the Mumbai
Metropolitan Region to the respective Municipal Corporations.
Respondent No. 9 has placed on record compliance details in
affidavits dated 13th June 2023, 27th September 2023, and
6th February 2024.
16. Respondent No.10 - Thane Municipal Corporation filed
two affidavits dated 30th December 2022 and 29th
September 2023 giving details of compliance made by the
Thane Municipal Corporation. It is stated that pursuant to
orders dated 18th December 2023, 23rd January 2024 and
15th February 2024, this Court directed Municipal
Corporations to response to non-compliance as per chart
submitted by the petitioner. However, the chart submitted by
the petitioner does not indicate name of respondent No.10.
17. Respondent No. 11 filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that
the repair and replacement of manhole covers on gutters,
drains, and footpaths are undertaken annually through the
tender process, with a specific budget allocation made for this
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
purpose. For the year 2022-2023, a total of 4,249 covers
within municipal limits were replaced. The names and contact
numbers of the officials responsible for manhole cover repairs
and replacements have been published on the municipal
website. Additionally, 100 covers are kept in reserve in each
municipal ward. A decision has been taken to install fiber-
reinforced polymer covers to prevent the theft of metal
covers. A dedicated website and mobile application have been
created for citizens to lodge complaints, and these platforms
are operational. Supervisors have been instructed to upload
photographs of any damage or theft so that remedial action
can be promptly taken.
18. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit contesting the
claim of compliance made on behalf of the respondents. It is
submitted that the report of the Court Commissioners indicate
non-compliance of directions regarding manholes in various
wards of MCGM. Various interim orders passed during
pendency of the PIL petition and contempt petition have not
been complied with. It is submitted that due to monsoon
some patch work done by the municipal corporation washed
away, which phenomena occur in every monsoon. There has
been no improvement in the state of roads, open manholes
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
and footpaths and, therefore, there is willful disobedience of
the order of this Court.
19. The petitioner in her oral submissions contended that
the respondents have willfully disobeyed order of this Court. It
is submitted that the respondents' incomplete construction of
road, even after substantial time has passed, demonstrates
willful disobedience of order of this Court. Partial compliance
as contended by the respondents does not amount to full
compliance and, therefore, action under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act need to be taken against the
respondents.
20. Mr. Mistry, learned Amicus has filed a note and
submitted that the respondents have acted in breach of
directions issued by this Court. By inviting out attention to the
various orders passed by this Court during pendency of
present contempt petition, it is submitted that the
respondents have failed to submit quarterly compliance
report; failed to maintain roads in good condition; failed to
install all manhole covers/primary covers; failed to formulate
policy for compensation to the victims of injuries caused by
poor road quality; the Apps and websites of various municipal
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
corporations including MCGM are non-functional; there is
improper illumination around roads while being repair or roads
with potholes/manholes. He suggested various measures to
be taken by this Court to ensure proper compliance as regards
betterment of condition of roads which includes appointment
of designated officer for implementation of contracts. By
inviting attention of this Court to various provisions of the
MCGM Act and Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, he
submitted that the State Government and the Commissioner
have power to ensure compliance of various duties in case of
failure by either officer or Municipal Corporation. He submitted
that directions can be issued to the respondents for providing
medical aid or compensation to the citizens injured or loss of
life due to potholes. He suggested for setting up of funds for
compensation to victims of pothole accidents similar to
compensation offered to victims of injured caused by collapse
of trees.
21. The respondents represented by respective learned
counsel submitted that they have complied with directions
issued by this Court by orders dated 24th February 2018 and
12th April 2018. They submitted that in any case undisputedly
there has been substantial compliance with the order of the
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
Court. They pointed out that substantial work of road
construction has been completed, and remaining work could
not be finished due to factors beyond control of the
Corporation. The respondents assured the Court their
commitment to complete recurring work of maintaining roads
each year and, therefore, submitted that there is no willful
disobedience of order passed by this Court.
22. Having scrutinized the record, and after considering
submissions made on behalf of both sides, in the light of
scope of contempt petition, this Court need to examine
whether respondents' action amount to "willful disobedience
of order of this Court; whether the respondents have made
bona fide efforts to comply with the directions; and whether
the respondents have demonstrated substantial compliance".
23. The contempt of Court, particularly civil contempt, is
governed by Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
which defines civil contempt as a willful disobedience of any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of
Court. It is well settled that for holding a party in contempt it
must be established that (i) there was a clear and
unambiguous order; (ii) the respondents had knowledge of
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
the order; (iii) the respondents willfully disobeyed or breached
the order.
24. In Kapil Dev Prasad Saha v. State of Bihar, the Supreme
Court held that to succeed contempt proceedings, it must be
shown that disobedience is both willful and deliberate. If there
is substantial compliance, contempt would not ordinarily lie.
To hold respondent in contempt, civil contempt specifically, it
must be demonstrated that there has been a willful disregard
of Court's judgment or order. Whether the disobedience is
willful in a particular case depends upon the facts and
circumstances of that case. Even negligence and carelessness
can amount to disobedience, particularly when the person's
attention has been drawn to the Court's order and their
implications.
25. In the landmark case in Re Vinaychandra Sharma,
(1995) 2 SCC 584, the Supreme Court dealt with issue of
contempt of Court, particularly emphasizes the seriousness of
maintaining the dignity and authority of the Courts. The Court
held that the power to punish for contempt is necessary to
ensure respect for judiciary and its order, as willful
disobedience of Court's orders undermines rule of law.
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
However, such power to punish for contempt should be
exercised with care and caution, and it must be used
effectively where there is willful breach of orders. It is held
that where there is a clear and deliberate attempt to flout an
order, punishment becomes necessary.
26. In the light of position of law as indicated above, it is
necessary to analyse the allegations on behalf of the
petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents. The
petitioner alleged that the streets are in poor condition, and
potholes continue to persist. The respondents have placed on
record material to indicate efforts showing repair of roads and
filled potholes. The question, therefore, arises as to whether
these efforts meet the standard of "proper condition" as
mandated by the order of which breach is alleged.
27. Upon perusal of the affidavits-in-reply filed by the
respondents, it needs to be noted that the respondents have
demonstrated that majority of roads have been maintained
and substantial concretization work has also been completed.
However, fact remains that certain stretch of road remained in
poor condition. The reply filed by the MCGM indicates that
except 81 kms out of 2050 kms of road, rest of the roads
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
have been concretized, or the work is in progress. Similar is
situation regarding other municipal corporations. Therefore, in
our opinion, there is substantial compliance of Court's order
as regards maintenance of roads and footways.
28. The next allegation is in relation to non-implementation
of Grievance Redressal Mechanism. This Court directed
respondents to establish Grievance Redressal System allowing
citizens to report potholes and poor road conditions through
various means, such as website, toll-free numbers and mobile
applications. According to the petitioner, these mechanisms
are either non-functional or not adequately publicized. The
respondents in their affidavits-in-reply have given details of
steps taken to set up a website, toll-free numbers and in
some cases mobile applications. However, there is insufficient
evidence to show that these mechanisms are effective or
accessible to public. Moreover, the respondents have not
adequately established fulfillment of directions to provide
effective and accessible mechanism for grievance redressal as
required by the judgment. However, affidavits-in-reply
indicate bona fide efforts and substantial compliance on the
part of the respondents to comply with the directions of
Grievance Redressal Mechanism.
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
29. It is next contended by the petitioner that the direction
of filling of potholes to be treated as an ongoing project and
completing it scientifically has not been satisfied by the
respondents by their piecemeal approach. The evidence on
record suggests that the MCGM has concretized 1224 kms of
road out of 2050 kms. Concretization of 356 kms road is in
progress and tenders are floated for length of 389 kms.
Therefore, balance length of road to be concretized remains to
be only 81 kms out of total length of 2050 kms of road. The
other municipal corporations have also stated on oath that
they have carried out measures to either fill up the potholes
or steps to concretize road has been taken up. This indicates
bona fide efforts on the part of the respondents to comply
with the directions.
30. The next direction is in relation to precautions to be
taken for open manholes. This Court directed that open
manholes shall be properly barricaded and marked to prevent
accident with specific mention of roads to visually impaired
persons. The respondents have indicated in their affidavits-in-
reply that most of the manholes have been covered, and
warning signs have been installed. However, the petitioner has
furnished instances where open manhole continue to exist
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
without proper warning signs on barricades. Therefore, this
Court is concerned with the serious risk posed by such
manholes which may result in loss of precious human life.
31. The material produced by the respondents in addition to
statement on oath indicates that substantial work of replacing
open manholes has been carried out by the respondents-
Corporations. Even as per the report of Advocate
Commissioners appointed by this Court, it is established by
the respondents-Corporations that bona fide efforts to comply
with this direction have been taken by them and this direction
is substantially complied with by the Corporations. This Court
is concerned about the serious risk posed by such manholes
which may result in loss of human life in some cases.
Therefore, the measures as stated in the latter part of the
judgment needs to be taken in public interest.
32. The analysis of material on record in the context of
statements on oath made by the respondents indicate that the
respondents have made bona fide efforts to comply with
directions of this court. However, their actions fell short of
complete compliance. The poor condition of some roads,
failure to establish fully functional Grievance Redressal
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
Mechanism operational throughout the year, piecemeal
approach to pothole repairs and lack of precautions for some
open manholes collectively show that the respondents have
not completely fulfilled directions under judgment dated 24th
February 2018 and 12th April 2018. However, the respondents
have established that they have made bona fide efforts to
complete the work, and they have not entirely disregarded
the order. Moreover, the delays and partial non-compliance
are justified by the reasons provided by the respondents
which cannot be entirely discounted. However, mere progress
does not negate the requirement to comply fully in the
prescribed timeline. The respondents-Corporations, while it
may not have acted with contemptuous intent, have explained
comprehensively delay to take immediate steps to comply
with the directions. The respondents' action do not appear to
be willfully contemptuous as contemplated under the
Contempt of Court's Act. However, this Court cannot overlook
the fact that the order has not been fully complied with in its
letter and spirit. Therefore, considering the facts and figures
produced on record by way of affidavit-in-reply along with
annexures, we are satisfied that while there has been
substantial compliance, the respondents must be directed to
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
complete the remaining work without any further delay. The
directions issued by this Court on 24th February 2018 and
12th April 2018 are public welfare measures which needs to
be complied with in its letter and spirit. However, considering
the scope of contempt petition, it is not possible to
continuously supervise compliance of directions of public
importance in its contempt jurisdiction. Moreover, considering
the nature of directions being of public importance and public
welfare is at stake, need of constant vigil and supervision in
its writ jurisdiction is essential, particularly in the light of fact
that original public interest litigation was a suo-moto public
interest litigation. We are of the considered view, therefore,
that orders in the nature of continuous mandamus are
necessary for ensuring compliance of directions which may
require continuous supervision.
33. Local authorities bear a continuous obligation, as
mandated by this Court, to maintain streets and footpaths in
a state of good condition, ensuring that the potholes are filled
scientifically as ongoing project. This duty is ongoing and
cannot be neglected without legal consequence. This Court's
directives also require the establishment of Grievance
Redressal Mechanisms. Local authorities are obliged to
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
implement systems that enable citizens to report concerns
related to public infrastructure. These mechanisms must
ensure that grievances are promptly addressed and resolved,
bringing up a culture of administrative responsiveness and
accountability. Local authorities are further mandated to
display information regarding ongoing works, including
contact details of responsible officials and projected timelines
for completion. Additionally, they are required to submit
periodic compliance reports to the State Government as well
as to this Court, detailing actions taken in response to citizen
complaints. This Court further mandated that local authorities
regularly monitor the efficacy of their Grievance Redressal
Systems. Designated officers must ensure that complaints are
addressed without undue delay, thereby strengthening
accountability across various levels of administration.The
requirement that local authorities submit comprehensive
compliance reports on a quarterly basis allows for consistent
oversight by the State Government and the judiciary.
34. The directives issued by this court emphasize the
importance of ensuring that Grievance Redressal Mechanisms
are widely publicized, thereby empowering citizens with
knowledge of their rights and avenues for reporting issues.
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
This citizen engagement is critical in holding local authorities
accountable for the quality of their services. By issuing
continuous mandamus, this Court needs to establish a
framework compelling local authorities to remain accountable
for their actions in relation to public welfare, which will
enhance transparency and ensure that local authorities
diligently comply with their responsibilities.
35. The principle of continuous mandamus has been
judicially recognized which contemplates judicial order that
requires ongoing compliance from the authorities, ensuring
that they fulfill their obligations every time rather than merely
at a single point. This continuous mandamus is particularly
relevant in cases where public welfare is at stake and the
need for constant vigil is essential. Continuous mandamus is
necessary to ensure that the Government or local authorities
adhere to their duties relating to public services which
includes maintaining road infrastructure or other statutory
duties casts under the provisions of the Municipal
Corporations Act.
36. Considering the nature of directions of which compliance
has been sought to be made by the present contempt
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
petition, one time compliance with the directions is
insufficient, particularly when the issues affect public welfare
which require timelines for compliance and mechanism for
monitoring progress. The introduction of Grievance Redressal
Systems and regular reporting requirements in Court orders
reflect intention of its commitment to continuous vigil. In the
case of present nature continuous mandamus serves to
compel respondents to not only act but also maintain
standards sustainable. This aspect is crucial, particularly when
neglect can lead to significant public harm to general public.
This Court, while issuing directions in the operative part, in its
analysis has recorded a finding that right to have streets and
footways in all reasonable condition is a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The authorities
under the Municipal Corporations Act have obligations to
ensure that the streets and footways are maintained in a
condition that allows the citizens to use them effectively. The
rationale behind continuous mandamus emphasizes its role as
tool for ensuring full benefit of right under Article 21
protecting public interest and enhancing accountability
amongst municipal authorities.
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
37. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the
considered opinion that the respondents have established that
they have made bona fide efforts to comply with the
directions and have further demonstrated substantial
compliance of the directions. Therefore, the respondents
cannot be held to have committed contempt of directions
contained in the orders of this Court dated 24th February
2018 and 12th April 2018. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the respondents cannot held to have committed willful
disobedience of order of this Court dated 24th February 2018
and 12th April 2018.
38. However, taking into consideration public welfare and
public importance of the directions in the light of recognition
of fundamental right under Article 21, Public Interest
Litigation No.71 of 2013 stands revived.
39. The respondents are directed to take immediate
corrective action to ensure full compliance with the directions
of this Court dated 24th February 2018 and 12th April 2018.
They shall submit a detailed compliance report by way of
affidavit in reply within eight weeks from today in Public
Interest Litigation No.71 of 2013, failing which further
conpp6-2019 in pil71-2013-Final.doc
coercive steps shall be taken against them.
40. List Public Interest Litigation No.71 of 2013 on 3rd
December 2024.
41. The contempt petition stands disposed of in above
terms.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
