Jharkhand High Court
Swajal Dhara Samiti vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 18 July, 2012
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(C) No. 263 of 2007
----
Swajal Dhara Samiti ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
----
For the Petitioner :Mr. xx
For the Respondents :JC to AG & Mr. R.M.Singh.
----
5- 18.7.2012 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned
counsels for the State and Cantonment Board are present.
This writ petition has been preferred for quashing the letter dated 12th June,2006 issued by the respondent no.6, Administrative Officer, Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantt, District Hazaribagh directing the respondent no.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to stop the work of execution of high level hand pump scheme in village Chhotki Murram and also for certain consequential reliefs.
The respondent no.6 has appeared and filed counter affidavit stating that under the Cantonment Act,2006 for carrying out any construction of building, which includes well, prior sanction of the Cantonment Board is necessary under Section 238 of the Act. It is further stated that as per Section 122(b) of the Act, all the properties lying within the cantonment, which has been acquired or provided or maintained by the Board, shall vest and belong to that Board and shall be under its direction, management and control. It is further stated that under Section 2(zze) of the Act, water work etc. is also under the control of cantonment and no body can execute such work without permission of the Board. It is further stated that a letter was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh regarding water scheme sought to be executed without obtaining the sanction of the Cantonment Board. However, it has further been stated that the Ministry of Defence has sanctioned a sum of Rs.5.93 crores for laying of water supply distribution pipes over the head tanks, sumps pumping set etc. within the cantonment area and the Board has already started executing the said work of water supply in Ramgarh Cantonment area and as such the impugned order is fully sustainable in law and no fault can be found on the part of the respondents.
The State counsel has also appeared and filed their counter affidavit, wherein they have also stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, vide his letter dated 7th November,2006 submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh that the land related to the water supply scheme at Chhotki Murram, Ramgarh falls within the Ramgarh Cantonment Area and as such, prior permission of the Cantonment Board is required. However, it is further sated that the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, has accorded sanction to the project and a special grant of Rs.6.00 crores has been released in favour of the Cantonment Board to finish the water supply projects and the village Chhotki Murram is within the said scheme, for which the work has already been started.
In view of the aforesaid facts and the the statements made in the counter affidavits of the respondents, it appears that the grievances of the petitioner are wholly misconceived and it also appears that the scheme itself might have been executed by now and the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. ) Pandey