Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Gauhati High Court

Debajyoti Dey & 29 Ors vs The State Of Assam & 8 Ors on 19 February, 2014

Author: A.K. Goswami

Bench: A.K. Goswami

                                                      PIL No.57 of 2013
                               BEFORE
             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.M. SAPRE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI
19-02-2014
(A.M. Sapre, C.J.)

      Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted

by Mr.U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs.B. Goyal,

learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr.B. Goswami,

learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department.

      This petition (PIL) is filed by 30 petitioners who are residents

of Tarapur Shib Bari Road, Silchar. Their main grievance in filing

this PIL is relating to embankment of a patch measuring 175

metres on the Silchar-Kalaian Road from Ch 05 metres to 175

metres.

      Notice of this petition was issued upon the concerned

State authority. They are served and duly represented.

      Ms. B. Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam, on

instructions, submits that all necessary remedial steps are being

taken by the concerned authority by handing over the road in

question to PWD (Roads) Department to make it suitable for its

use as 'road'. It is also submitted that till such time the road is not

made suitable for its use as 'road', heavy vehicles will not be

allowed to ply over it.

      We are satisfied with the statement made by Ms. B. Goyal,

learned Government Advocate, Assam so also the counsel

appearing for the petitioners because once the remedial steps

suggested by the State Counsel are implemented in its letter and

spirit, then the grievance raised by the petitioners in this PIL shall




                                                            Page 1 of 2
 be fully met and would no longer be faced by the residents of

the area which includes the petitioners.

         Since the State has taken steps to remedy the grievance,

we do not wish to keep the petition pending and close the same

with a direction to the respondents (concern authorities of the

State) to ensure implementation of the statements made before the Court through the State counsel on instructions from the State and take all remedial steps and bring it to its logical conclusion preferably before the monsoon set-in this year.

The petitioners would always be at liberty to renew their grievances, if the respondents do not ensure compliance of the statement made before this Court, if occasion so arises in future.

No cost.

                    JUDGE                          CHIEF JUSTICE




ISINGH




                                                         Page 2 of 2