Bombay High Court
Shrihari Anant Shidore And Others vs The Commissioner/Administrator And ... on 15 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
34.22pil
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
P-1 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 34 OF 2022
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8332 OF 2022
IN PIL/34/2022
SHRIHARI ANANT SHIDORE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER /ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS
....
Mr A. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate/Amicus Curiae for petitioners;
Mr S. S. Tope, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr A. B. Girase, G.P. for respondent No.5 & 8 to 10/State
Mr A. G. Talhar, DSGI for respondent Nos.7, 12 & 14
Mr R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Mr Vinod Patil,
Advocate for respondent No.6
Mr D. P. Madkar, Advocate h/f Mr D. S. Manorkar, Advocate for
Respondent No.11
Mr A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.13
Mr R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b Mr S. N. Suryawanshi,
Advocate for Respondent No.15
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 15th March, 2024 PER COURT:
HIGH COURT CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE'S REPORT
1. The learned Government Pleader has placed a copy of the High Court constituted Committee's Report (35 pages), along with a covering letter dated 11/03/2024, addressed to the learned Government Pleader, by Ms Alice Pore, Deputy Commissioner, 34.22pil (2) Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The same is taken on record and collectively marked as 'X-37' for identification. We have perused the directions given by the Committee. The learned Senior Advocate Shri. Dhorde submits that the Project Contractor is committed to comply with the said directions and ensure to the best of it's ability to satisfy the said directions within the time prescribed.
2. The learned Senior Advocate Shri. Dhorde submits that, he has personally visited various spots for confirming the extent and progress of the work. A compilation of 16 photographs are placed on record, which are collectively marked as 'Y-38' for identification.
TERM EXTENSION FOR THE PROJECT
3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri. Dhorde representing the Project Contractor has pointed out paragraph No.11 of the order dated 12/04/2023, passed by this Court, which is reproduced herein below.
"11. The Member Secretary, Shri. Krushna has also made a request to the Court that the contractor should not tender a road-map to the Court before it vetted by the MJP.
34.22pil (3) We need not question the said request. Nevertheless, what we would expect from the MJP is that it should be consistently on it's toes and ensure that the highest priority is given to this project and maximum attention is paid to ensure that the project is completed within the deadline. Needless to state, the High Court constituted Committee would conduct meetings every fortnight, as per our earlier orders, and would continue tender reports to the Court alongwith its comments, observations and if possible, even recommendation."
4. He submits that, as like the regular meetings of the High Court constituted Committee, regular meetings are convened by the Principal Secretary Shri. Krushna, at Mumbai. A compilation of 25 pages is placed on record, which is collectively marked as 'Y-39' for identification. Our attention is drawn to Clause 8 of the said compilation at internal page No.24, to indicate that the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran has, in principle, agreed that the Project work should be completed by December 2024 and he has issued instructions for initiating steps to ensure that the project continues and the work is completed by December 2024.
5. In this backdrop, Shri. Dhorde requests that, this aspect may be placed before the High Court constituted Committee, though it is not entrusted with the task of deciding 34.22pil (4) the tenure of the project, but only for it's information that the Government is looking into the aspect of granting extension of time to the Project Contractor on such terms, as the Government would formalize, so as to complete the project by December 2024. We grant liberty to the Divisional Commissioner, who is the chair person of the Committee, to have a look at that aspect. The Government to take a decision since granting such extension pertains to the realm of the State Government.
OBSTACLES AT DHORKIN AND BIDKIN
6. The learned Senior Advocate Shri. Dhorde submits that the Project Contractor has to clear 200 mtrs. work at Dhorkin on the Paithan road and around 1200 mtrs. at Bidkin. The grievance of the Contractor is that, there are certain localites, who are creating obstacles in the path of the progress of the said project. The works of the Contractor are stopped and obstructed, thereby delaying the project work. A strong police force is required to ensure that persons attempting to obstruct the project, are controlled.
34.22pil (5)
7. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that, adequate police force would be deployed to ensure that the Project Contractor smoothly performs the project work at Dhorkin and Bidkin. The Police Department would extend full protection to the Project Contractor since this is a public project and is aimed at supplying water to the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City, through the newly laid pipeline under 'Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation 2.0' (Amrut 2.0) (which is known as the new water supply scheme).
8. This Court is monitoring the progress of the said new water supply scheme in this Public Interest Litigation. Every fortnight, a hearing is held in this matter, for almost 2 years. The local administration, as well the as the State Government is involved in the project and it is necessary that the project should be completed expeditiously. In several orders, we have expressed that, we would not tolerate any obstruction or obstacles to this project by any person, however, high position he or she may be occupying, and we have already directed here before to initiate appropriate action against such persons, who are creating obstructions.
34.22pil (6)
9. We,therefore, expect the Police Authorities to deploy adequate police force, and if they find that they are short of police force, they are at liberty to requisition the assistance of S.R.P. or Home Guards and ensure that every obstructor or a person trying to create obstacles, is dealt with sternly and swift action is initiated against him by following the due procedure laid down in law. Any interference or obstruction in this scheme or it's path/progress would not be tolerated and would be considered as an interference in the justice dispensation system and violation of the orders of this Court.
REQUIREMENT OF SAND
10. Having considered the request of the Project Contractor and the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, we call upon the State Government to ensure that 12000 brass of sand, which would be required within a period of around 60 days, be provided to the Project Contractor. For the said purpose, appropriate sand ghats/spots will have to be identified. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Deshmukh appearing for the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran informs that, earlier environmental clearance was taken for two ghats. One ghat is exhausted. As regards the other 34.22pil (7) ghat, probably, a fresh procedure for seeking further approval/clearance will have to be initiated.
11. Shri. Dhorde made it clear that the said quantity of sand would be required after around 50-60 days. The State Government shall initiate quick steps at this stage on-wards and with the assistance of the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, it should be ensured that the necessary environmental clearance is received and the sand ghat/s is/are identified to provide 12000 brass sand to the Project Contractor after around 50 days from today.
12. List this Public Interest Litigation on 27/03/2024 at 4:30 p.m. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk Signed by: Sachin J Kulkarni Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/03/2024 11:44:00