IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Mukesh R. Shah, Ravi Ranjan, JJ.
Abdul Salam, Son of Late Munshi Nazir – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Ors. – Respondents
CWJC No.6345 of 2017 & 7861 of 2018
Decided On : 30-08-2018
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Public Interest Litigation – Petitioners pray for appropriate writ, direction and order restraining respondents from destroying village pond situated at Village-Ghorasahan under Gram Panchayati Raj Ghorasahan South, District- East Champaran and to restrain them from destroying Pucca boundary wall of pond – It is also further prayed to direct respondents to restore pond by filling up water which has been drained out and take steps for its preservation – Government including Revenue Authorities are duty bound to clean and develop water bodies so that ecological disaster may be prevented and a better environment provided to people at large – Virtually pond in question has been destroyed – Same is evident from photographs placed on record and even counter filed by Bihar State Pollution Control Board – Shops are being constructed just on the bank and even in pond itself – Condition of pond is worst – It is duty of every Zila Parishad and even District Magistrate to maintain pond/ponds, reservoir, lakes etc. – Petitioners are entitled to reliefs as prayed for in petitions by directing concerned respondents including Zila Parishad, East Champaran at Motihari, District Magistrate, East Champaran to remove encroachment/construction made in pond in question, adjacent to pond in question and to direct District Magistrate, East Champaran and Zila Parishad, East Champaran at Motihari to restore pond in question – Writ petitions allowed. (Paras 2.2 ,3, 4 and 5 )
JUDGMENT :
Mukesh R. Shah, J.
1. Present writ petitions in the nature of Public Interest Litigation have been preferred by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction and order restraining the respondents from destroying the village pond situated at Village-Ghorasahan under Grampanchayati Raj Ghorasahan South, District-East Champaran and to restrain them from destroying the pucca boundary wall of the pond. It is also further prayed to direct the respondents to restore the pond by filling up water which has been drained out and take steps for its preservation.
1.1. That a supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioners in reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in which it has been stated that the Respondent No. 2, in complete violation of the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by this Court, has continued the construction activities and he used water pumps to dry the pond. It has been submitted that 75 per cent of the area of the pond has been occupied by the newly constructed shops. In support of the above, photographs have been produced and relied upon.
1.2. A counter is filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 it has been stated that the construction of the shops is being carried out on the bank of the pond and on the barren land. It is stated that this pond is not being disturbed by the Zila Parishad. According to the Respondent No. 2, the shops are being constructed to enhance the income of the Zila Parishad.
1.3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed by the Circle Officer, the allegation of the petitioners has been denied. It is stated that the pond is in the use of people in general and the pond has been fenced by brick boundary wall. It is further stated that as per the decision of the Government of Bihar vide Letter No. 655 (6) dated 16th June, 2016 the Rivers, Jhils, Ponds etc. are to be protected and revived. In the counter it is specifically stated by the Circle Officer that the Zila Parishad is making construction in the pond area and the pillars have been constructed by the Zila Parishad, East Champaran.
1.4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board-Respondent No. 5 herein. What is stated in the counter filed on behalf of the Pollution Control Board is shocking. On the basis of the inspection of the pond in question carried out by the Board, which was carried out pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, it is stated that the construction of the shops are being carried out not only in the periphery of the pond but also extends even in the bed of the pond. It is further stated that the solid waste is being dumped in the pond and sample of water was collected from the pond and the same was sent for laboratory examination and it has been observed that pH of the water is as per the prescribed standards but dissolved oxygen level was well below the prescribed standards. It is specifically stated that the pond has lost its wholesomeness as the pond is full of water hyacinth and not suitable for domestic consumption and not even suitable to support aquatic life.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. The present writ petitions in the form of Public Interest Litigation have been filed for an appropriate order directing the respondents to protect the pond in question situated at Village-Ghorasahan under Grampanchayati Raj Ghorasahan South, District-East Champaran. Considering the counters filed on behalf of the respective parties, more particularly the counter filed on behalf of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board as well as the Circle Officer and even the photographs produced on record, it appears that the pond in question is virtually destroyed. The shops are being constructed not only surrounding the pond but even in the pond itself. It is the case on behalf of the Zila Parishad that
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.
Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking v. State of Haryana
Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and others
M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) Vs. Union of India and others
M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath and others
M.K. Balakrishnan (1) and others Vs. Union of India and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.