Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sudhir Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2015

                                1




        W. P. No.7007/2006, W.P. No.12203/2006,
      W.P. No.8385/2008 (PIL), Cont No.1055/2008,
      W.P. No.1372/2009 (PIL), Conc.No.301/2011,
  W.P. No.19578/2012 (PIL), W.P. No.2289/2013 (PIL),
  W.P. No.6631/2013 (PIL), W.P. No.17886/2013 (PIL),
   W.P. No.4237/2014 (PIL), W. P. No.6458/2014 (PIL),
  W.P. No.12454/2014 (PIL), W.P. No.17556/2014 (PIL),
    W.P. No.3164/2015 (PIL), W.P. No.14770/2015 &
                  W.P. No.15032/2015
2.11.2015
    W. P. No.7007/2006, W.P. No.8385/2008 (PIL), W.P.
No.1372/2009 (PIL), W.P. No.17886/2013 (PIL), W.P.
No.4237/2014 (PIL), W. P. No.6458/2014 (PIL), W.P.
No.12454/2014 (PIL), W.P. No.17556/2014 (PIL)
     None     appears     for       the   petitioners   in    W.P.
Nos.7007/2006,       8385/2008,       1372/2009,    17886/2013,
4237/2014 and 12454/2014.
     Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.
No.6458/2014.
     Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, counsel for the petitioner in
W.P. No.17556/2014.
     Shri Samdarthi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for
respondents/State.

Shri Prem Francis, counsel with Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, counsel for Respondent Nos. 12 and 13 in the respective petition.

Shri R. S. Jaiswal, Senior Counsel with Shri K. K. Gautam, counsel for Respondent No.14 and 15 in the 2 respective petitions.

Shri Sharad Punj, counsel for the respondent No.27 in W.P. No.1372/2009.

Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for respondent- Diamond Cement in respective petitions.

Heard counsel for the parties in the respective petitions.

These petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigation. The issue raised in these petitions is, essentially, in respect of overloading of private vehicles. That issue is already pending consideration in W.P. No.12203/2006. Hence, all aspects regarding the issue of overloading can be dealt with in that petition.

As a result, we dispose of these petitions leaving open all questions to be considered in the companion cases.

We also grant liberty to the petitioner(s) to get themselves impleaded in the main W.P. No.12203/2006 involving issues regarding overloading of vehicles, if so advised.

We make it clear that disposal of these petitions may not be construed to mean that the interim directions passed by this Court against the State Authorities in the respective petitions are vacated. Instead, those interim directions will operate as having been passed in leading W.P. No.12203/2006, until such further orders are passed by this 3 Court either at the time of disposal of the leading writ petition or further interim orders, as the case may be.

Disposed of accordingly.

Cont No.1055/2008:

None appears for the petitioner.

Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State.

Shri Prem Francis, counsel with Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, counsel for Respondent No.6.

Shri R. S. Jaiswal, Senior Counsel with Shri K. K. Gautam, counsel for Respondent No.11.

Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for respondent- Diamond Cement.

Heard counsel for the parties.

This contempt petition has been filed on the assertion that the Authorities have failed to comply with the order dated 23.7.2008 in W.P.No.8385 of 2008. In the contempt petition, however, no specific act has been mentioned as to how the Respondent No.3 can be said to have committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. A general and vague statement is made that Respondent No.3/R.T.O. has failed to comply with the directions passed by this Court and which amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court.

Significantly, the Court order is dated 23.7.2008, whereas this contempt petition has been filed on 12.9.2008. The Court issued notice on this contempt petition on 23.10.2008. At this distance of time and more so, because the main writ petition (W.P. No.8385/2008) has been disposed of, we decline to precipitate the matter any further.

Hence, this contempt petition is disposed of.

Petitioner - Shri Gyan Prakash appears in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State.

Delinked.

To be heard along with W.P. No.6969/2006, as the cause of action for filing of this contempt petition arises out of the order passed in the said proceedings.

W.P. No.19578/2012 (PIL) Shri Ajay Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy.Advocate General for respondents/State.

Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for the respondent Union of India.

Shri K.N. Pethia, counsel for the respective 5 respondent.

Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for the respondent No.2.

Delinked.

To be heard along with W.P. No.13467/2011 and companion matters in which issues regarding road condition of National Highway in the State of M.P. is pending consideration.

W.P. No.2289/2013 (PIL) and W.P. No.6631/2013 (PIL) Shri Ajay Shukla, counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.2289/2013.

None appears for the petitioner in W.P. No.6631/2013.

Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy.Advocate General for respondents/State.

Shri K. N. Pethia, counsel for respondent in respective petition.

Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for the respondent No.4 in W.P. No.2289/2013.

Shri P.K. Kaurav and Shri Aditya Khandekar, counsel for the respondent No.6 in W.P. No.2289/2013.

Shri Manish Tiwari, counsel for the respondent No.7 in W.P. No.2289/2013.

Shri M.K. Agrawal, counsel for the respondent No.8 6 in W.P. No.2289/2013.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The principal relief claimed in these petitions is to issue writ of mandamus against the State Authorities/respondents to comply with the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Bhasin and others Vs. Union of India and others in W.P. (Civil) No.136/2003 decided on 9.11.2005 in its letter and spirit.

The respondents on affidavit as well as through counsel have fairly stated that so long as the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court is in force, all the duty- holders (State Authorities) are bound to comply with the same in its letter and spirit. In view of this assurance, nothing more is required to be done qua relief Clause 11

(i). As and when the petitioner or similarly placed person is in a position to point out to the concerned Authority about the infringement of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we have no manner of doubt that all such Authorities will immediately take corrective and remedial measures as may be required without any delay. Besides this, nothing more is required to be said in relation to prayer Clause 11 (i).

The second relief claimed in these petitions is to issue writ of mandamus to the respondents for immediately 7 submitting complete action report as to the measures taken by the State Government and, in particular, planning to curb the overloading of transport vehicles in the State of M.P. The question regarding overloading of transport vehicles is already made subject matter in W.P. No.12203/2006 which has been entertained by this Court as Public Interest Litigation. The Court has also appointed amicus curiae to assist the Court. Further, the State Government has submitted action plan before this Court and which is being implemented and periodical status reports are submitted to the Court in that behalf. In that sense, nothing survives for consideration even in prayer Clause 11 (ii).

We accordingly dispose of these petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take up the issue regarding infringement before the appropriate Authority as and when occasion arises and if such representation is received, the State Authorities must immediately move into action and take the same to its logical end in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to all concerned.

Petitions disposed of accordingly.

Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The direction sought in this petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is to direct the respondent Authorities to uniformly adopt and implement the Policy 2014 formulated for design construction and maintenance of new roads by Public Works Department within the State of M.P. Further relief claimed in the petition is to direct the respondents Authorities to enhance participation of Nationally Accredited Laboratories (NABL Labs) for testing of material to be used in construction so as to keep quality check in the construction work of the roads.

Reverting to the first prayer, it is indisputable that the aforesaid policy has been formulated as per the directions given by the High Court in W.P. No.16498/2013 vide order dated 20.11.2013, which has been brought into force w.e.f. 15.1.2014. Not even a single case has been referred to in this writ petition which has been filed on 1.3.2015, to demonstrate that the construction of road qua the concerned project was not in conformity with the aforesaid policy. In absence of any specific case brought before us about violation of the policy coupled with the fact that the State Government has now formulated a comprehensive policy to ensure that overloading of transport vehicles and 9 private vehicles is completely stopped in the State of M.P., we find no reason to entertain this writ petition.

As regards second relief for issuing directions to the Authorities to enhance participation of NABL Labs, the policy itself recognizes that position. For, Clause 6 of the Policy of 2014 predicates that the participation of NABL Labs must be enhanced for testing of materials.

Taking any view of the matter, we are not inclined to continue with this writ petition and more so because the larger issue regarding overloading of trucks and the action plan of the State Government for enforcement of the said policy is already subject matter in W.P. No.12203/2006, which has been entertained as Public Interest Litigation and the Court has appointed amicus curiae to assist the Court on all the matters.

Hence, disposed of.

W.P. No.14770/2015 (PIL) Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy.Advocate General for respondents/State.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the main basis for giving rise to filing of this petition is the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) which 10 has since been withdrawn.

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement. In that case, consequential relief claimed in this petition also does not survive for consideration as the main order dated 18.12.2014 has been withdrawn.

As a result, this petition is disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents.

None appears for the petitioner.

Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State.

The first relief claimed in this petition is to direct the respondents to check the laden weight of the vehicles at the sand quarries itself before issuing the transit passes which is the only way forward for ensuring that there is no case of overloading of vehicles. The relief claimed in this petition, prima facie, seems to be valid suggestion which must be explored by the State Authorities.

We are informed that such mechanism is already provided in respect of transport of major minerals before issuing transit passes. If it is being done for issuance of transit passes for major minerals, there is no reason why the State cannot adopt the same mechanism even in respect of issuances of transit passes for minor minerals.

Learned counsel for the State prays for time to take instructions.

As regards prayer Clause 11 (b) is concerned, the direction sought against the Authorities is to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Shiva Corporation (India) Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2011 (1) MPHT 159, which, in turn, restates the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Narmada Enterprises Vs. State of M.P. and others - W.P. No.1820/2001 decided on 7.5.2001.

Since we are deferring the hearing of this matter to enable the counsel for the State to make appropriate statement, we also expect the State Authorities to make statement with regard to this prayer clause on the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, list on 24.11.2015.

This petition shall remain linked with W.P. No.12203/2006 which shall also be listed on that date.

Petitioner - Mr. Gyan Prakash appears in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State.

Mr. Gyan Prakash has invited our attention to order dated 24.7.2015 passed in W.P. No.5083/2015. He submits 12 that the observations found in this decision are not in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court.

It will be open to Mr. Gyan Prakash to bring that position to the notice of the Court in the said petition, if so advised, or share the information with the counsel for the State, who, in turn, would pursue the matter with the concerned Authority.

List this petition on 24.11.2015, as prayed.

     (A.M. Khanwilkar)                     (Sanjay Yadav)
        Chief Justice                          Judge
Anchal