Lalan Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors

2. TheStateofJharkhandwascreatedon15thNovember,2000. Obviously the Government/Governments were satisfied that it is essentialtobifurcatetheerstwhileStateofBiharandoneportion may be curved out for creation of a new State, i.e. State of Jharkhand, so that there may be continuous sustainable developmentintheStateofJharkhandandtheobjectivemaybeof upliftmentofpublic intheStateofJharkhand,whomaylivewith dignity,whichincludestheirrighttoliveinaplanned,developed, maintainedandhygeniccity.However,ashasbeennoticedbythis Court,since2000 theStateofJharkhanddoes not haveitsown AssemblyBuildingeven.Ithasbeenbroughttothenoticeofthis Courtthatanumberofplanswerefloatedandforpreparationof D.P.Rofthoseplans, publicmoneywaswastedandthatmaybea less damagetothe public oftheStateincomparisontothe loss whichhasbeeninflictedtothepublicoftheStateofJharkhandby notgetting theofferedfundfromCentralGovernmentbecause of absolutelylathargicwayofworking,amountingtotakingsalaryand perks by the Officers for virtually no working. There are several otherissueswhichwillindicatethathowmuchofthefundhadbeen offeredbytheCentralGovernmenttotheStateGovernmentinthe 3 last 13 years but have not been utilized because of the gross negligenceoftheOfficersoftheState.Thelossofthefundtothe Statecannotbeignored,thenalsothegravefact,whichcannotbe ignored,isthatpublicoftheStateofJharkhandaredraggedtolive in an absolutely unhygenic environment as in 2013 affidavit has beensubmittedbytheRanchiMunicipalCorporationon10th April, 2013,admittinginpara6thatItisstatedthatRanchidoesnothave a sewerage and drainage system and as such there is no treatment plantfortreatmentofdomesticeffluent. Thisisthepositionofthe year2013,after13yearsofthecreationoftheStateofJharkhand anddeclaringRanchiasCapitalCity.Itisnotthatsuchissuewasnot intheknowledgeoftheadministration.Notonlytheissuewasinthe knowledge of the State administration but also a public interest litigationwasfiledasbackasintheyear2002whereuponW.P(PIL) No.3585/2002 had been registered. We are not referring other ordersbutwearestartingwiththeorderdated24thFebruary,2006 passedinW.P(PIL)No.3585/2002,whereinpresenceofthethen learnedAdvocateGeneralfortheStateandofthecounselforUnion ofIndia,theCourtobservedthatthisPILhasbeenpreferredbythe petitioner, bringing to the notice of the Court the nonfunctional sewerageanddrainagesysteminthecapitaltownofRanchi.This Courtinthesaidordernotedthatasnumberofhouseshavebeen constructed,colonieshavedeveloped(whichisaseriousquestionin theState)butnosewerageordrainagesystemhasbeendeveloped bytheStateformaintaininghygieneofthepublicofJharkhand.In 4 the order dated 24th February, 2006, it was noted that there is a proposal to appoint Consultant, who will prepare D.P.R, whereinafter, the State, on studying the Report, will identify the source of fund for the scheme and then it will take steps for publicationofthescheme,invitingobjectionsandwillallotthework. Achartwassubmittedindicatingthetimeframewithinwhichsteps willbetaken.Thefirststepwastofloatatender.Suchtenderwasto be floated by March, 2006 and ultimately for completion of the work,fouryeartimewasshownsoastoendtheworkinthemonth ofMarch,2010.Thesaidcharthasbeenquotedintheorderdated 24th February, 2006. Then in the same order dated 24th February, 2006,theDivisionBenchdirectedtheCentralGovernmentthrough the Secreatary, Ministry of Urban Development, to take steps for releseoffundunderappropriatescheme,asandwhentheauthority oftheStateofJharkhandsoapproaches.TheCourtobservedthatin case of any difficulty, it may inform the Court. The State of Jharkhand and Ranchi Municipal Corporation, in their turn, were directedtocompletetheworkwithintimeframeasshowninthe statusreportandquotedinthechart.

3. Nowintheyear2013,theaffidavitdated10thApril,2013,has beenfiled,whereinithasspecificallybeenstatedthatRanchidoes not have a sewerage and drainage system and as such there is no treatment plant for treatment of domestic effluent, a clear case of contemptismadeout.Gravityisaddedbecauseofthereasonthat theorderdated24thFebruary,2006wasnotthefirstandfinalorder 5 anddirectiontotherespondentsbutitwasmonitoredbytheHigh Courtin the samepublic interestlitigation continuouslyupto28th April,2008andrespondentswereremindedthattheyhavetotake stepsforprovidingasewerageanddrainagesysteminthecapital townofRanchi.Theundertaking givenbytheStateGovernment andRanchiMunicipalCorporationrecordedintheorderdated28th April, 2008, has been fully flouted by the respondentState and MunicipalCorporation.

4. Duringthisperiodupto28th April,2008andaftertheorder dated24th February,2006,thesaid W.P(PIL)No.3585/2002was taken up for consideration on 5th May, 2006, wherein this Court observedthatinspiteofspecificorderspassedbythisCourton17 th February,2006and24thFebruary,2006,therespondentshavefailed to show any progress in regard to making the provisions for sewerageanddrainagesysteminthecapitaltownofRanchi,which are nonfunctional since long. On that day, the then learned Advocate General submitted that though the Consultant was appointedbutinviewofcertainallegation,theStateAssemblyof Jharkhandhadorderedfor enquiry.ThenthisCourtobservedthat sinceitisamatterrelatingtosewerageanddraingagesysteminthe capitaltownofRanchianditwillbecomehazardous tothepublic health,theauthoritiesshouldtakeadecisioninoneorotherway withregardtoappointmentofconsultantsothattheconstructionof sewerageanddrainagesystem inthecapitaltownofRanchimay start at an early date. On 30th June, 2006 in W.P (PIL) 6 No.3585/2002, it was submitted that the Consultant is likely to submitreport within six weeks andthe time was allowed by this Court.On9th November,2006,theCourtobservedthatthestatus reportfiledbytherespondentswouldindicatethatagreementhas beenenteredintoandaspertheagreement,theConsultanthasto submit the Draft Project Report on or before 26.12.2006. In the hopeofsowouldbedone,thematterwasadjournedforobtaining DraftProjectReport(DPR).

5. On12thJune,2007,counselforRanchiMunicipalCorporation submitted that project report was sent to the Government for consideration. On 27th June, 2007, the then learned Advocate General informed that D.P.R has been received from the Ranchi MunicipalCorporationbytheStateGovernmentandislikelytobe placedbeforetheCabinetforapproavalandforotherformalities.On 2nd July,2007againthefactsrelatingtopreparationofD.P.Rhave beennotedindetailbytheDivisionBenchandtheRanchiMunicipal Corporation informed the Court that Municipal Corporation has already appointed consultant for preparation of the D.P.R for the solidwastemanagementsystem andthe scheme tomanageover flowofdrainsetc.Findingthesituationandtheslowprogressand to redress the grievance of people of Ranchi, it appears that by subsequentorders,thisCourtdecidedtoappointsomeCommittee whowas tomonitorandsupervisetheworkofcleanlinessof the cityofRanchiandthenthereportsweresubmittedbythemembers oftheCommittee.Bytheorderdated3rdOctober,2007,thisCourt, 7 after receiving 4th report submitted by the then learned Advocate General,tosupervise,10dayspecialcleaningdriveandawareness programmewasstartedfrom1stOctober,2007to10thOctober,2007 andforthatpurpose,differentareasweredemarcated andnamed workersgivenresponsibilitytoseetheworkofcleanlinessofthecity ofRanchi.

6. Abovefactswehavereferredtoshowthatthoughitwasnot the job of this Court to monitor the governance and exectuive functionoftheMunicipalCorporationandtheState'sdutybutthe Courtwaswillingtoseethattillpermanentsolutionisprovidedto thepublicofthecityofRanchi,themattermaynotbelefttothe MunicipalCorporationaloneandtherefore,startedmonitoringthe workofcleanlinessofthecity,whichcouldhavebeendonefora shorterperiod/interveningperiodonlyandtherefore,aboveorders werepassed.Findingthissituationaswindfalltotheadministration of the Municipal Corporation, it appears that the Municipal Corporation along with the State Government left everything in lurchresultingintolapseofD.P.Rpreparedatthatrelevanttimeand lossoftheCentralfund,whichwouldhavebeenmadeavailableto theRanchiMunicipalCorporation,astheschemewasnotprepared intime.LearnedcounselforUnionofIndiasubmittedthatUnionof India has its own planning for making the funds available to the StateGovernmentandif,theStateGovernmentdoesnotutilizethe fund,thenthosefundwilllapseandtheywillrightlylapsebecause thefundcouldnotbekeptidle,affectingtheotherprojects”

7. Atthisjuncture,itwillbeappropriatetogivereferenceofyet anotherpublicinterestlitigation,beingW.P(PIL)No.2944/2011.In thesaid PIL,ithasbeenallegedthatinspiteofmakingavailable hugefundbytheCentralGovernmentfordevelopmentoftheareas falling within various areas of the Municipal Corporations and particularly in three Municipal Corporations, i.e. in the city of Ranchi,JamshedpurandDhanbad,undertheschemeof JNNURM, fundshavenotbeenutilizedandthetimeprescribedforutilization ofthefundswouldcometoanendon31stMarch,2012.Thedetails ofthefundsallottedunderthesaidschemeunderdifferentheads havebeengivenintheorderdated17th January,2012,aboutthe RanchiMunicipalCorporation.Thesaidwritpetitionispendingand islistedtodayinCourt.Inthispetitionalso,severalordershavebeen passed.

8. Bethatasitmay,wearenowaddressingtooneissue,i.e.with respectto drainage and sewerage system of the cityof Ranchi in particularandexpandingthescopeinthisContemptPetitiontothe otherissuesoftheStateofJharkhandbecauseofthereasonthatif theprojectofdrainageandseweragesystemofthecityofRanchiis ignoredfor13years,weareoftheconsideredopinionthatthework will not be done in other cities of the State of Jharkhand of the similarnature.Atthisjuncture,itwillbeappropriatetorecapitulate thatW.P(PIL)No.3585/2002wasdisposedofonlyforthereason that elected body took over the administration of the Ranchi MunicipalCorporationanditwasstatedthatnowtheelectedbody 9 willcontinuetoimplementtheorderalreadypassedbythisCourtin W.P(PIL)No.3585/2002andthetermoftheelectedbodyalready expired after full working of the elected body and thereafter we foundthisaffidavitoftheMunicipalCorporationfiledon10thApril, 2013thatthereisnosewerageanddrainagesysteminthecityof RanchiundertheMunicipalCorporationofRanchi.

9. WealsoonearlieroccasionsalreadyobservedthatJharkhand HighCourtwantstowindupthePILbutitappearsthatnoneinthe governanceandadministrationwantsthatHighCourtshouldwind upPILastheycanonlyworkundertheordersoftheCourtandnot otherwise. We are conscious that the Governments and Municipal Corporationsmayhavemanyworks butatthesametime,ifany onesarethinkingthatsewerageanddrainagesystemofthecapital city is notthe workofanyimportance,thentheyare wrong and cannot take the shelter of other works so as to bypass the importanceoftheworkofsewerageanddrainageofthecapitalcity and also of other cities because each city must have its own administrative body for managing the system of sewerage and drainage.

7. Sinceweareoftheconsideredopinionthatbecauseofwillful disobedienceoftheorderofthisCourt,ashasbeenmadeoutfrom the facts of the case and further not taking steps for preventing dumping of solid waste and sewerage in Harmu river, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer,MunicipalCorporation,RanchiandtheSecreatary, UrbanDevelopmentDepartment,Govt.ofJharkhand,shallremain 10 presentinCourton15thJuly,2013andtheyaregivenfurthertimeto give a complete datewise chart by which they will complete the schemeoflayingdownsewerageanddrainagesystematleastinthe cityofRanchi. Putupthiscaseon15thJuly,2013. CopiesofthisorderbegiventothecounselforState,Unionof IndiaandRanchiMunicipalCorporation. (Prakash Tatia, C.J.) (Jaya Roy, J.) dey