Bombay High Court
Municipal Council, Karanja (Lad) ... vs Savitribai Phule Prathmik School, ... on 27 August, 2018
Author: S.B. Shukre
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp.5404.18.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5404 OF 2018
Petitioner : Municipal Council, Karanja (Lad),
through its Chief Officer,
Municipal Council, Karanja (Lad),
Tal. Karanja (Lad), Dist. Washim.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Savitribai Phule Prathmik School,
Karanja (Lad), R.N. No.3076,
Through its President,
Smt. Urmilabai Subhashchandra Ingole,
Age about 60 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Karanja (Lad), Dist. Washim.
2] The District Collector, Washim,
Civil Lines, Washim, District Washim.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri P.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.M. Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard Shri P.P. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.M. Chaudhari, learned Counsel, who appears by waiving notice for respondent No.1 and Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, learned Assistant Government Pleader, who appears by waiving notice for respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 00:58:31 ::: wp.5404.18.jud 2 02] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
03] I have gone through the second application filed by respondent No.1 and the impugned order. I have also considered the material placed on record.
04] Upon consideration of the material available on record, I see no merit in the petition for the reason that evidence in the nature of photographs has been placed before the trial Court by respondent No.1 in rebuttal of which no photographs were produced before the trial Court by the petitioner. These photographs do show that the heaps of excavated earth have been made right in front of the entrance gate to the school and big pits have also been dug in front of the entrance to the school. Such excavation work was the result of the work undertaken by contractor of the petitioner in relation to laying of underground water supply line and that was an event subsequent to passing of the first injunction order. When injunction order was in operation, it was essential for the petitioner to have properly instructed the contractor to carryout the work without causing any danger or harm to the life and safety of the school children. But, this does not appear to be the case here. ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 00:58:31 ::: wp.5404.18.jud 3 05] After all, one has to consider the presently ongoing monsoon season. If the water gets accumulated in the pits that have been dug in front of the entrance to the school, there is a possibility of some mishap or accident occurring and the safety of the school children will be at stake. The piles of earth made by the contractor also pose danger to safety of children and create obstacles in making ingress to and egress from the school. In order to avoid such untoward incidents and obstructions apart from ensuring compliance with the order of injunction passed by the civil court, it was essential for the petitioner to make amends in the whole matter, but as it was not done by the petitioner, the trial Court was required to pass the second order directing the petitioner to remove the obstacles created by it. I do not see any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
06] There is also an argument that the subsequent order which is impugned in this petition is in the nature of a second injunction, which is not permissible in law. I am not impressed by the said argument. The first order is about restraining the petitioner from doing such act as would create obstructions in the proper user of the school and the second order is about removal of the obstructions created by the petitioner in spite of restraining order ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 00:58:31 ::: wp.5404.18.jud 4 operating against it. The petitioner must remain satisfied that the respondents did not initiate any punitive action for willfully committing breach of the restraining order passed by the Civil Court and respondent No.1 has only filed another application politely requesting the Civil Court to direct the petitioner to remove the obstructions created by it in spite of restraining order in operation. There is no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed.
07] As the civil suit itself is pending since the year 2012, it would be in the fitness of things that the direction should be issued for the expeditious disposal of the suit and accordingly it is directed that the suit shall be decided in accordance with law within three months from the next date already fixed in the suit.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(S.B. SHUKRE, J.) *sandesh ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2018 00:58:31 :::