Uttarakhand High Court
Prof Ajay Singh Rawat vs Union Of India & Others on 26 March, 2015
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh, Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 31 of 2012
Prof. Ajay Singh Rawat .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Additional Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Subhash Upadhaya, Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for Municipal Board, Nainital.
Mr. C. D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Advocate/ Head of the Committee of
Advocate Commissioner.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that appropriate action on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner about the amendment of the G.Os. and Bye-laws in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Ajay Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (3) SCC 266 shall be taken within 45 days and decision so taken shall be communicated to this Court.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the Lake Development Authority, submits that meanwhile L.D.A. will not sanction any map till decision is taken by the State Government on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner. In other words, no map shall be sanctioned in violation of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Rawat (Supra) and no constructions which are not completed as yet, shall be permitted to be raised and shall be stopped immediately.
2It is directed that in the garb of repairing, re-construction or fresh construction shall not be permitted in violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Rawat (Supra).
Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Addl. Advocate General further contends that Government has already been informed about the immediate appropriate steps for the appointment of Analyst in the Food Testing Laboratory. He further contends that steps taken shall be communicated to this Court by way of affidavit on or before the next date fixed.
Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Addl. Advocate General further contends that he will find out as to whether Government has appointed any Agency for the sterilization of the dogs in view of the fact that dog biting cases are increasing day by day.
It is reported by Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate that steps have not been taken as yet by the District Administration as well as Lake Development Authority for cleaning the Naini Lake. We direct District Administration as well as Lake Development Authority to initiate appropriate steps for cleaning Naini Lake. Steps taken for cleaning the Naini Lake shall be communicated to this Court on the next date of hearing.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Advocate and one of the seniormost member of the Committee of Advocate Commissioners submitted that copies of the applications moved in this PIL have not been supplied to him, therefore, he cannot comment as to whether applicants are encroachers or they have raised construction at their own land in violation of the Bye- laws or sanctioned map.
3Let three copies of the applications be supplied to the Committee of Advocate Commissioners so that they may file reply of the applications and may assist the Court properly.
In first phase, let copies of 20 applications be supplied to them within a week and thereafter copies of all the applications shall be supplied to them within next four weeks.
Since nothing has been paid to the members of the Committee of Advocate Commissioners, therefore, we direct the State Government to pay Rs.50,000/- to Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate, Rs. 30,000/- to Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate and Rs. 25,000/- to Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate within a week so that they may bear day-to-day expenses in preparing the replies.
List on 9th April, 2015.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Alok Singh, J.) Dated 26th March, 2015 Shiv 4