Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aabid Hussain vs The Union Of India on 16 January, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 26019 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
AABID HUSSAIN S/O LATE GHULAM HUSSAIN, AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O STREET
NO. 5 BAGHEECHHA PEER SAHAB CANTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AABID HUSSAIN - PARTY IN PERSON)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,ESTATES NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEFENCE ESTATES
GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE RAKSHA
SAMPADA BHAWAN, ULAANBAATAR MARG
DELHI CANTT10 (DELHI)
3. THE GOC IN C THE COMMAND MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE 17, CARIAPPA ROAD LUCKNOW CANTT
226002 (UTTAR PRADESH)
4. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATES,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CENTRAL COMMAND,
17-CARIAPPA ROAD, LUCKNOW CANTT 226002
(UTTAR PRADESH)
5. THE DEFENCE ESTATES OFFICER JABALPUR
CIRCLE JABALPUR CANTT. MP PIN CODE 482001
DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 1/19/2023
2:16:22 PM
2
B O A R D , DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. THE STATION COMMANDER STN. CELL, H.Q.,M.B.
AREA, PIN 901124 C/O 56 APO (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking the following relief:-
"7.1 The Hon'ble court may kindly be please to allow the petition and the further pleased to restrain illegal drainage pipe line construction and also destruction the construction work of drain on Survey No.165-A and Survey No.167 Cantonement. Jabalpur respondent No.4 should over ride decision of Board Annexure P/1 and in view of Annexure P/9 and Annexure P/10 disciplinary action may be taken against all arraying officer/authority(s) who deliberately failed to response the law of the land. Cost of petition may also be awarded."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a social worker and being a vigilant citizen of the country, he is pointing out the illegalities being committed by the respondents in carrying out the new construction work of new drain pipe line for residents of Survey No.165-A which is just opposite to the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that the same is an unauthorized construction for which he has filed several representations before the respondent authorities for redressal of their grievances but of no consequence. Repeated representations were a futile exercise being done by the petitioner. Therefore, under the compelling circumstances, he has filed the petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 1/19/2023 2:16:22 PM 33. Notices have been issued. The reply has been filed by the authorities along with a separate affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur pointing out the fact that the Board is having every right to carry out the required work. It is contended that the Board is duty bound to provide civic amenities in cantonment area as provided under Section 62 (viii),
(x), (xiv) and (xv) of Cantonment Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006"). Section 64(iii) of the Act of 2006 provides for reclaiming unhealthy localities in one of the discretionary functions of the Board. The Cantonment Board being a Municipal body under Section 10 of the Act of 2006, they are duty bound to maintain hygiene and provide a clean area to enable the citizens to live in hygienic conditions. The Cantonment Board has only done the work on the existing public groups, latrines and drains in such areas which requires urgent repair. Also, under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan providing toilets/public group latrines is the paramount object of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan. The resolution passed by the Cantonment Board for repairing of the existing public roads and drains etc. was already in existence since decades and in pursuance to the same, the repair work is being carried out by the respondents.
4. Respondents have further highlighted the duties and discretionary functions of the Board as provided under Section 62, duties of the Chief Executive Officer as provided under Section 25, power of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief as provided under Section 58, special power of the Chief Executive Officer as provided under Section 26 and discretionary functions of the Board as provided under Section 64 of the Act of 2006.
5. It is contended that in view of the discretionary powers and looking to the need of the repair work, the work has been carried out in pursuance to the Signature Not Verified resolution passed on the earlier date. On earlier occasion, the petitioner Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 1/19/2023 2:16:22 PM 4 preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.19938 of 2014 which was titled as Aabid Hussain Vs. Union of India and Others and in pursuance to the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, a letter was written to the petitioner pointing out that the directions given by the Court have already been complied with.
6. The petitioner could not dispute the compliance of the order passed in the earlier round of litigation. He has tried to raise a grievance with respect to the action of the respondents by pointing out the provisions of the Act of 2006. It is submitted that there is a huge manipulation of funds and the authorities were not even authorized to carry out the repair work in terms of the cantonment laws. But the fact remains that there is no counter to the response which has been filed by the respondent authorities. In absence of any rebuttal to the reply and considering the fact that there is a specific stand of the respondents accompanied by an affidavit of the responsible officer, it cannot be said that any new construction has been raised. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
7. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to cost.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 1/19/2023
2:16:22 PM