The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of public authorities to discharge their duties effectively and the impact of corruption on public welfare and social inequality.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to ensure compliance of their own order dated 29.6.2018, annexure 5 to the writ petition, wherein Zonal Officer, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (now Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj) (hereinafter referred to as “P.D.A.”) has found certain constructions raised by respondent 4 as unauthorized, non-compoundable and in violation of Section 14 and 15 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1973") and has directed respondent 4 to demolish itself unauthorized construction otherwise it shall be demolished by respondents 2 and 3 and necessary expenses shall be recovered from respondent 4.

3. Petitioner's grievance is that the aforesaid order was passed on 29.6.2018 and there is no obstruction in its execution but for the reasons other than bonafide (better known to respondents 2 and 3), said order has not been enforced till date and unauthorized construction has not been demolished, though more than six months have already passed. It is also pointed out that earlier also, petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.18694 of 2018 pointing out that demolition notices were issued from time to time in respect of unauthorized construction of respondent 4 but no action was taken. On the statement made by counsel for PDA, writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 23.5.2018 which reads as under :-

"Heard Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Yash Tandon, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Counsel for respondents-development authority having regard to the prayers made in the writ petition, submits that respondents-authority shall take appropriate action in pursuance of the order of demolition passed earlier, including the orders dated 12.12.1996 and 22.12.2006 within a period of eight weeks from today. His statement is recorded and accepted.

In view thereof, nothing further survives in the writ petition. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. We hope and trust that respondents-authority shall comply the orders within the time mentioned above, if there be no legal impediment. It is needless to mention that respondents-authority shall follow the due process of law, while carrying out demolition proceedings."

(emphasis added)

4. Thereafter, respondent 3 issued notice dated 26.5.2018 and then passed order dated 29.6.2018 but the same has not been implemented and executed till date.

5. Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and when questioned as to why no action has been taken and authorities were sitting idle over the matter, he could not give any reason and said that authorities were busy in Kumbh Mela and appropriate action would be taken in a short time. We find it surprising that there was already an order of this Court in which, it was stated on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that appropriate action would be taken in eight weeks i.e. two months and, later on, order was also passed on 23.5.2018 but till date, except passing order for demolition, no concrete action has been taken by respondents 2 and 3 and they are conveniently sitting tight over the matter. This clearly demonstrates some thing fishy and collusive on the part of respondents 2 and 3 with respondent 4, hence, we called upon respondent 3 to inform the Court, why no action has been taken.

6. Sri Shushil Kumar Chaubey, Zonal Officer appeared and informed the Court that process of demolition has already started and demolition team alongwith requisite machines etc. has already reached the site. When questioned why no action was taken earlier and more than six months has been allowed to lapse and why petitioner is compelled