Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bagpat Colony Vikas Samiti vs The State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Shubha Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17536/2022
Bagpat Colony Vikas Samiti, Bagpat Colony In Front Of Krishi
Mandi, Jaipur Road, Sikar (Rajasthan), Through Secretary
Mr. Banwari Lal Dhaka.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development
Programmed, Through Its Project Director, Avs Building,
Jawahar Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Environment, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Chairperson, 4 Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongari,
Jaipur.
6. RIICO, Through Its Managing Director, Sikar.
7. Municipal Corporation Sikar., Through Its Executive
Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Sharma on behalf of Mr. Bal Ram Vashisth For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG with Mr. Prateek Singh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 18/01/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:57:13 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-17536/2022]
2. The petitioner is said to be a registered society of the residents of Bhagpat Colony. The society has preferred this writ petition in public interest basically in the interest of the residents of the colony alleging that the respondents are constructing a drain, more particularly an industrial waste drain, which is likely to pass through the colony affecting the lives of the residents. Thus, a prayer has been made that the respondent No.6 be stopped from constructing the said drain.
3. We have gone through the representations also that have been submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No.6, but we find that the said representations are not very categorical and clear and do not mention that the drain which is being constructed is only for outflow of the industrial waste or that there existed no such drain earlier.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 submits that a drain actually exists and the respondent No.6 is only taking steps to widen it and to make it in the form of covered culvert.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration of the factual aspects as to whether the drain was already in existence, or if such a drain is constructed, will it cause problem for the residents of the residential colony, or as to if alignment of the said drain has been changed so as to pass through the residential colony. The said aspects of the matter can be better considered by the Managing Director of RIICO.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.6 raising all its grievances in connection with the construction of the alleged drain (Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:57:13 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-17536/2022] or an industrial waste drain within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed, the respondent No.6 shall consider it and pass appropriate speaking order on it most expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/10
(Downloaded on 24/01/2023 at 11:57:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)