MUMBAI: In a aid to BMC, the Supreme Court has stayed two Bombay prime courtroom orders to appoint a nodal officer and a committee to supervise road upkeep which, the civic body had complained, was once causing “constant interference’’ in its functioning.
A bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices D Y Chandrachud and A M Khanwilkar on March 19 also issued a understand to the HC and others at the BMC’s plea difficult the orders. The HC had in 2013 transformed a letter by means of Justice Gautam Patel on “pathetic conditions” of roads in Mumbai right into a suo motu PIL.
ince then, it has handed several intervening time orders, together with two closing 12 months whose validity the BMC has questioned.
In its special leave petition, the BMC stated the “courtroom can't take with itself the duty of running the affairs of civic body” and that the appointment of a nodal officer and a committee “resulted in an obstruction in the easy functioning of the company and can further lengthen the verdict making procedure causing inconvenience to public at massive”.
Last August, a bench headed by means of the then Chief Justice Manjula Chellur appointed the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA) as a nodal officer to sign in pothole similar proceedings after which in closing November every other bench also headed by means of her shaped a two member committee of HC judges to direct the nodal officer and BMC on looking into restore and maintenance of roads. The bench had stated it’s the BMC’s responsibility to gather information (on condition of roads) and rectify them, however “if the stated responsibility is not discharged, then the courtroom has to interfere and compel the government to discharge their duty/responsibility”.
The BMC’s petition says upkeep of roads is its statutory responsibility. “Court can't appoint nodal officials or a committee constituting judges to monitor and run the affairs of road management,’’ it stated. It also stated that the BMC has its personal mechanism and hierarchy to take care of the problem of roads and its upkeep as supplied in the statute, which the courts can't “exchange.’’
The BMC stated the HC orders have raised various ‘query of legislation’, together with whether it should be subject to orders of such committee and nodal officer which have “no sanctity in the eyes of legislation”.
To bolster its case, the BMC cited a 1992 SC judgement which held that “courtroom can't take itself the duty of running the affairs of the public body”. The SLP has also made as parties, the state government, the PWD, central road research institute and a number of other municipal corporations, together with of Thane and Navi Mumbai.
Justice Patel, in his letter to the HC Chief Justice on July 24, 2013, had stated the pathetic conditions of roads not simplest resulted in hardship to folks but in addition casualties. The consequent, suo motu PIL has as parties, the Centre, state and various other municipal bodies. There are loads of respondents in the PIL which is being heard by means of the prime courtroom.
In the newest order in January 2018, days earlier than BMC moved the SC, a bench of Justices Abhay Oka and PN Deshmukh stated the suggestions made by means of the courtroom appointed committee is also considered as tips after suggest Jamshed Mistry, amicus curea in the subject, cited a Supreme Court which stated that courtroom can't outsource its powers beneath the Constitution.
The HC had also reiterated, “It is the criminal obligation of the state to ensure that all roads are maintained in a reasonable condition free from potholes. In reality this courtroom has already held that beneath Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the voters have a proper to ensure that the roads are maintained in a reasonable condition.’’
The Supreme Court is expected to listen to the subject after four weeks.
A bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices D Y Chandrachud and A M Khanwilkar on March 19 also issued a understand to the HC and others at the BMC’s plea difficult the orders. The HC had in 2013 transformed a letter by means of Justice Gautam Patel on “pathetic conditions” of roads in Mumbai right into a suo motu PIL.
ince then, it has handed several intervening time orders, together with two closing 12 months whose validity the BMC has questioned.
In its special leave petition, the BMC stated the “courtroom can't take with itself the duty of running the affairs of civic body” and that the appointment of a nodal officer and a committee “resulted in an obstruction in the easy functioning of the company and can further lengthen the verdict making procedure causing inconvenience to public at massive”.
Last August, a bench headed by means of the then Chief Justice Manjula Chellur appointed the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA) as a nodal officer to sign in pothole similar proceedings after which in closing November every other bench also headed by means of her shaped a two member committee of HC judges to direct the nodal officer and BMC on looking into restore and maintenance of roads. The bench had stated it’s the BMC’s responsibility to gather information (on condition of roads) and rectify them, however “if the stated responsibility is not discharged, then the courtroom has to interfere and compel the government to discharge their duty/responsibility”.
The BMC’s petition says upkeep of roads is its statutory responsibility. “Court can't appoint nodal officials or a committee constituting judges to monitor and run the affairs of road management,’’ it stated. It also stated that the BMC has its personal mechanism and hierarchy to take care of the problem of roads and its upkeep as supplied in the statute, which the courts can't “exchange.’’
The BMC stated the HC orders have raised various ‘query of legislation’, together with whether it should be subject to orders of such committee and nodal officer which have “no sanctity in the eyes of legislation”.
To bolster its case, the BMC cited a 1992 SC judgement which held that “courtroom can't take itself the duty of running the affairs of the public body”. The SLP has also made as parties, the state government, the PWD, central road research institute and a number of other municipal corporations, together with of Thane and Navi Mumbai.
Justice Patel, in his letter to the HC Chief Justice on July 24, 2013, had stated the pathetic conditions of roads not simplest resulted in hardship to folks but in addition casualties. The consequent, suo motu PIL has as parties, the Centre, state and various other municipal bodies. There are loads of respondents in the PIL which is being heard by means of the prime courtroom.
In the newest order in January 2018, days earlier than BMC moved the SC, a bench of Justices Abhay Oka and PN Deshmukh stated the suggestions made by means of the courtroom appointed committee is also considered as tips after suggest Jamshed Mistry, amicus curea in the subject, cited a Supreme Court which stated that courtroom can't outsource its powers beneath the Constitution.
The HC had also reiterated, “It is the criminal obligation of the state to ensure that all roads are maintained in a reasonable condition free from potholes. In reality this courtroom has already held that beneath Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the voters have a proper to ensure that the roads are maintained in a reasonable condition.’’
The Supreme Court is expected to listen to the subject after four weeks.
SC stays HC ‘meddling’ in BMC
![SC stays HC ‘meddling’ in BMC]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
March 23, 2018
Rating:
