Skip to content


Rajneesh Misra Vs Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P . (PIL) No. 6141 of 2008.
Judge
AppellantRajneesh MisrA.
RespondentUnion of India and ors.
Appellant AdvocateMr. D. Jerath.
Respondent AdvocateR.R.Mishra.
Excerpt:
the respondent, a veterinary surgeon, was in the service of the state government of uttar pradesh. 6. the respondent challenged his termination from service by filing a writ petition (civil miscellaneous writ petition no.47118 of 2003) before the allahabad high court. in view of the omissions on the part of the state government, the high court concluded that the punishment awarded to the respondent was excessive and, consequently, quashed the impugned order of his termination of service dated august 16, 2003. having come to the finding that the charges against the respondent were duly established, the high court ought to have simply dismissed the writ petition. .....seek help of a qualified person who can do it and such person can be engaged on contract as the state government has already committed itself that any such appointment will be supported by the state government financially. certain petitions have been filed before r.r.d.a and they were required to file their response. they will do so by monday (14.3.2011).4. this has been brought to the notice of the court that there are applications pending in the office of the r.r.d.a and ranchi municipal corporation for sanctioning the plans and they are very old. both the authorities, r.r.d.a and ranchi municipal corporation, are mandated that such applications for sanctioning the plans should be disposed of forthwith in lawful manner. it is asserted that no application is pending for sanctioning.....
Judgment:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Today, an Intervention Application has been filed on behalf of Jharkhand Chamber of Commerce and Industries. It is a happy development that the Captains of industries has chosen to come to Court. It was put to the counsel appearing for the Chamber of Commerce that the Chamber of Commerce, as a protector of the business communities' interest, has also responsibility for safeguarding the interest of the society at large. The grievance raised was that some forceful action is taken against the alleged encroachers in the shape of wrong assessment, which is not rightful. It was put to the counsel for the Chamber of Commerce that if the Chamber of Commerce is prepared to take upon itself that all those who are encroachers will be persuaded to vacate the unlawful encroachment and all those who are in possession of the land other than their rightful title land will be persuaded by the Chamber of Commerce to vacate the same, this Court would be happy to entrust the responsibility to the Chamber of Commerce and extend all lawful resources to the Chamber of Commerce so that it can accomplish this social responsibility for the city and also for the whole of the State. Learned counsel for the Chamber of Commerce wants time to seek instructions from his client. For this purpose, the matter will be taken up on Monday (14.3.2011).

2. Before this Court, a grievance is raised that one Mr. Ram Kumar Singh is functioning as Town Planner, who has no training or qualification as Town Planner. He may not be a rightful person to take right decisions for removal of the encroachment because his qualification may not equip him to take rational decision. This grievance has been put up in an affidavit today before this Court.

3. The counsel appearing for the R.R.D.A wants time to seek instructions and file counter. Let counter affidavit be filed. In the meantime, the R.R.D.A will not lose sight of the fact that a qualified person is required to assess all the encroachments in a rightful manner and it may also seek help of a qualified person who can do it and such person can be engaged on contract as the State Government has already committed itself that any such appointment will be supported by the State Government financially. Certain petitions have been filed before R.R.D.A and they were required to file their response. They will do so by Monday (14.3.2011).

4. This has been brought to the notice of the Court that there are applications pending in the office of the R.R.D.A and Ranchi Municipal Corporation for sanctioning the plans and they are very old. Both the authorities, R.R.D.A and Ranchi Municipal Corporation, are mandated that such applications for sanctioning the plans should be disposed of forthwith in lawful manner. It is asserted that no application is pending for sanctioning any plan by R.R.D.A. An affidavit to this effect be filed by Monday (14.3.2011).

5. Mr. Sohail Anwar, Sr. Advocate, has drawn attention of this Court that in a writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 1852/2000 certain instructions were given by this Court but such instructions have not been complied till date. Let this petition (C.W.J.C No. 1852/2000) be also tagged with these petitions and on the next date of hearing this Court will see as to what were the orders and as to why they were not complied with. Mr. Sohail Anwar also appearing for one of the respondents in these petitions drew attention of this Court that the district authorities are not acting for fulfillment of their legal obligations for taking care of the environmental, air, water, sound and other pollutions. Apart from this, the grievance of Mr. Sohail Anwer is that today one of the Newspapers namely 'Prabhat Khabar' published that the 'Polythene is a big menace in this City' and it is inhibiting the proper growth and the water resources of the city and the environment is being adversely affected. The State Government should take steps into it and the learned counsel for the State is directed to inform the State Government about pollution. The State Government is also required to make a policy regarding use of Polythene in the State.

6. Mr. A.K. Pandey, counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board has brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has already passed an order that the Plastic Bag of a particular specification can only be used but not otherwise, but this order is not being implemented. For non implementation of this order, before this Court issues contempt notices to the State authorities, they are called upon to explain as to what has happened to the implementation of the order for nonuse of plastic of a particular specification. It is reported that certain vigilance enquiry has been made with regard to the sanctioning of the plans. The Vigilance department will look into its report and if any cognizable offence is made out, F.I.R will be registered and proper action taken by the Vigilance Department. The counsel appearing for the State Government is directed to inform the Vigilance Department that what action is taken by the Vigilance be informed to Court.

7. Yesterday's situation of rampant encroachment is being submitted to this Court in the form of a 'C.D.' by the counsel for the petitioner. The same may be kept on record in a sealed condition. The matter will be taken up for doing needful on 14.3.2011.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //