Gujarat High Court
Vasudev vs Chaudhary on 19 July, 2011
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3394/2011 10/ 10 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3394 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA :
=======================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=======================================================
VASUDEV
K THAKKAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHAUDHARY
SAHEB
TALUKA
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR AJ YAGNIK for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2,
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 19/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Learned counsel, Mr.A.J. Yagnik appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person, under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act for the prayer that the respondent no.1 be punished for non-compliance with the orders and directions of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7053/2010 and thereby he has committed contempt, for which, he may be suitably punished. It is also prayed that though Talati of Undera Gram Panchayat is not residing in the headquarter, the Sarpanch has issued certificate to that effect and, hence, Sarpanch of Undera Gram Panchayat may also be removed from the said post. Further, it is prayed that the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2010 with regard to 11 points has been considered by the DDO and by an order dated 01.10.2010, though he directed the Taluka Development Officer, Vadodara to take appropriate action, same has not been followed. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.1, failing which, further action may be taken and/or direction may be issued.
The broad facts of the case briefly stated are that the Undera Gram Panchayat has failed to take appropriate measures for the health and other civic facilities as required under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 and inspite of the repeated requests, same has not been making any progress. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. Reference is made to the various Resolution of Undera Gram Panchayat and the complaint is made to various authorities.
The petitioner, Mr.Vasudev, who appears as party-in-person, has referred to Page No.36 with regard to the order passed by the District Development Officer and 11 points, which have been raised and submitted that though the District Development Officer has passed an order, the Gram Panchayat has failed to comply either with the directions or with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act for providing civic and other facilities. He submitted that the Undera Gram Panchayat has passed Resolution, however, same has not been implemented nor any action has been carried out in this regard and, hence, the Sarpanch or Talati should be held responsible. He submitted that if the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act imposing obligation on such civic body is not carried out then who should be responsible. He submitted that the accountability has to be fixed in light of the statutory provisions when some basic requirement or civic facility are not taken care inspite of repeated requests. He referred to the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, more particularly, Section 97 of the Panchayat Act in support of his submission. He also submitted that some minimum wages are not paid to the sweeper and others, which affects the functioning of the Panchayat and civil facilities are not provided to the citizens. Similarly, he has submitted that earlier this Court had issued direction that if the Panchayat is not having any resources, it should take grant from the Government but cannot escape from the liability. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in (2006) 2 GLR 1129 in case of Suo Motu V/s Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Learned counsel, Mr.Yagnik submitted that the problems of urbanization and urban agglomeration create such situation and they are being faced by different cities. He submitted that the present case is also like the same where these villages are in urban agglomeration of the city and infrastructure facilities or the development are taken up but there may be a gap in the pace of the urbanization and urban agglomeration and necessary improvement in the infrastructure in such urban agglomeration. He submitted that first development takes place, which compels the authorities or the Government to make suitable provision like infrastructure but it takes some time in the process for various reasons like population, resources etc. Therefore, learned counsel, Mr.Yagnik submitted that without much details, as could be seen from the order passed by the District Development Officer (Annexure-N), he has considered every aspect or the points and has issued directions to the Taluka Development Officer for providing or improving civic facilities. He further submitted that by the said order, the Sarpanch is also ordered to be removed for his failure to discharge obligation under the Panchayat Act. He submitted that it cannot be said that the orders of this Court or the District Development Officer are violated much less any deliberate violation can be attributed. He fairly submitted with regard to some of the genuine difficulties and has stated that the District Development Officer will make every efforts resolving the grievances. However, he also stated that there are certain limitations also and for development of infrastructure on development of urban agglomeration, it is not the Panchayat or one civil body, which can cope up. Therefore, though there are obligations cast under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, efforts could be made for finding some solution, otherwise not only such local authorities but even other authorities or the Government may also not be able to fulfill the expectation of the people. He further submitted that appropriate direction could be issued for considering the genuine or urgent difficulties particularly when it has been pointed out with regard to the basic civic facilities and also making some arrangement for disposal of the rain water when the monsoon is approaching.
Learned counsel, Mr.Yagnik has also referred to the report as an advocate which he had made after visiting. He, therefore, submitted that he has suggested that the Collector, Vadodara and District Development Officer, Vadodara both be directed to ensure providing monsoon water drainage system in the village to meet with the problem of water logging during monsoon. He further submitted that further aspect with regard to interconnection of drainage system between the drainage system of IOC and Undera Gram Panchayat may also be considered. Similarly, he has stated that appropriate direction may be issued to the District Development Officer, Vadodara and Taluka Development Officer, Vadodara to ensure for proper disposal of the domestic garbage collection. However, he submitted that there cannot be door to door domestic garbage collection but it could be regularly removed and which requires the supervision and monitoring by the respondent no.1.
In the circumstances, it is required to be considered the rival submissions.
Though the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person as a public spirited citizen, has filed this petition for the good of the residents of Village : Undera praying for various reliefs with regard to non-compliance with the orders/ directions or non-discharge of the obligations under the Panchayat Act cast upon the Panchayat and other authorities. It is required to be mentioned that the directions were given earlier and things have moved. The District Development Officer, Vadodara has passed an order removing the Sarpanch, which is produced at Annexure-M. In the said order of the District Development Officer, he has referred to all the points and submissions as discussed. Further, as rightly pointed out, it is a human problem which is created due to fast development and urbanization and urban agglomeration of the cities and more and more urban agglomeration area is covered in the pace of the development though speed or wake of the development and corresponding improvement in the infrastructural and other facilities may not go together for various reasons. Further, the obligation is cast upon under the Panchayat Act but those obligations which have been cast upon, are confined to under the Panchayat Act with regard to basic civic facilities. When it refers to larger area of infrastructure and other facilities or the development like drainage system etc., it will not be within the capacity or the resources of the Panchayat to provide such infrastructure, which may have in turn to depend upon the grant of the Government or the urban authorities, which is created when the city is developing with urban agglomeration and such urban development authorities undertake the development of infrastructure in urban agglomeration. There is no quarrel with the submission that there has to be some kind of liability and the obligation which has been cast under the statute like Panchayat Act and has to be fulfilled by the Panchayat Act at-least in respect of basic facility like facility to remove the garbage.
It is well accepted in a judgment reported in AIR 1980 SC 1622 in case of Municipal Council, Ratlam V/s Vardhichand & Ors. that want of resources may not be a case but one cannot overlook the overall scenario as discussed above when the urban agglomeration is developing and with the development, the infrastructure will have to follow, which do not go together. It is in these circumstances the urgent or initial difficulties are required to be attended on priority basis. Therefore, it would not be proper to direct the respondents to take appropriate measures as suggested in the report made by the learned counsel, Mr.Yagnik that the Collector, Vadodara and District Development Officer, Vadodara may be directed to ensure for providing water drainage system in the village to meet with the water logging during ensuing monsoon season of 2011 and it can be attended or taken care of to the extent possible. Similarly, it can be permitted to ensure with regard to the connection with the drainage system of IOC as far as possible subject to the technical aspect. Further, the removal of the domestic garbage, which may also cause some problem in the monsoon requiring urgent attention.
In the circumstances, the District Development Officer, Vadodara shall direct the Taluka Development Officer, Vadodara to ensure that the domestic garbage is collected from different points in the village (may not be door to door collection) and it shall be regularly monitored and supervised by the Taluka Development Officer, Vadodara-respondent no.1 with regard to such system of removal garbage. Necessary steps may be taken for providing the adequate remuneration to such workers. The District Development Officer, Vadodara and Taluka Development Officer, Vadodara both shall make visit for the assessment of the sanitation problem and working hours of the existing health of sanitation workers of the village so as to take appropriate steps, which may be possible and permissible at their level with their resources.
With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) /patil Top