SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Phassang Yachang W/o Shri Tarh Taigh – Respondent
WA No. 1 of 2023
Decided On : 09-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Subu Tapin.
For the Respondent: Dugmar Kamduk.

Point of Law: Right to shelter does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's head but right to all infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being.

Headnote:

Occupants of government quarters - Lacks basic amenities - Provide alternative accommodation - Respondents/petitioners approached Court by filing writ petition on ground that alternative accommodation allotted to them lacks basic amenities and is in a dilapidated condition and is not fit for human dwelling – There is no electricity or water connection, which two amongst other are part of basic amenities - Para 14.

Finding of the Court:

Government has already taken decision to re-construct multi-storied flats in place of dilapidated and out-lived government quarters where respondents/petitioners are presently staying and as per Expert report it poses a great risk and danger to occupants because of its deteriorated condition - Respondents/petitioners have been requested to shift to alternative accommodation situated at Village - Respondents/petitioners objected to same on ground that same is not fit for human dwelling as there is no electricity and water connection in building - There exists a policy for house rent allowance for those government employees who are eligible for rent free government accommodation but have not been provided with any rent free government accommodation - Only alternative accommodation at Village does not have electricity and water connection which are part of basic amenities – Court do not find any reason to interfere with direction for consideration of grievances of petitioners passed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order.

Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This intra-Court Appeal has been preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/254/2022.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the respondents/ petitioners (17 in numbers) who are Government Employees have been allotted Government quarters at Papu Hill, Naharlagun and they have been staying in their respective quarters with their family. In the meantime, the State Government in the Department of Housing has issued an order dated 30.06.2022, wherein the PWD, Naharlagun Division had proposed to construct multi-storeyed flats in place of the old quarters at Papu Hill, Naharlagun. In order to pave way for the said proposed construction, an alternate accommodation has been provided to the respondents/petitioners, whose quarters are proposed for demolition for reconstruction. The respondents/ petitioners being the occupants of the government quarters which are sought to be demolished and on proposal of alternate accommodation, visited the building allotted to them, but found out that the same was in a highly dilapidated condition and not fit for human dwelling. On 22.07.2022, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Naharlagun Division issued a notice stating that in order to clear the site for construction of multi-storeyed residential building in place of the out-lived quarters at Papu Hill, Naharlagun, the alternate accommodation are being provided to the occupants whose quarters are proposed for demolition and requested the respondents/petitioners to shift/ vacate the quarters under occupation, by submission of vacation report within 15 days. On receipt of such notice, the respondents/ petitioners submitted a representation before the Executive Engineer, PWD, Naharlagun Division. Vide another notice dated 26.07.2022, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Naharlagun Division in continuation to the notice dated 22.07.2022, stating that the semi permanent type quarters occupied by the respondents/petitioners are at risk and danger, and alternate accommodation has been provided to the occupants whose quarters are proposed for demolition and were requested to shift/vacate the quarter by submitting vacation report within 15 days.

4. On being not considered the grievances by the authority, the respondents/petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petition (Supra) on the ground that the alternative accommodation allotted to them lacks basic amenities and is in a dilapidated condition and is not fit for human dwelling. The respondents/petitioners also submitted that the other difficulties faced by the petitioners is that their children are attending schools in the nearby areas and they are in the mid-session. Besides, some of them are undergoing medical treatment, which would be disrupted if they were asked to shift out from the place. Therefore, they have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide alternative accommodation which is suitable for human habitation and for setting aside the order dated 30.06.2022 and the notices dated 22.07.2022 and 26.07.2022.

5. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the grievances of the respondents/petitioners, disposed of the writ petition (supra) at the motion stage with a direction to the Secretary (Housing), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar and the Director, Urban & Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to consider the grievances projected by the petitioners in their representation and locate an alternative and suitable place where the respondents/petitioners can be accommodated within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy and until such decision is taken, the order dated 30.06.2022, and the notices dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top