A PIL Writ Petition regarding the washing away of a foot overbridge in Dahisar due to floods. The Court examined the committee report which found no specific negligence but noted deficiencies in design and record maintenance. The petition is disposed of with a direction to pay compensation to the committee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL Writ Petition No.27 of 2006
Ramesh Manohar Nirgun .. Petitioner vs Mun Corpn of Gr Mumbai & ors ..Respondents
Ms. Sumedha Rao for the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Ms P.A. Purandare for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr.Sayyed AGP for respondent No.4.
Ms Kiran Bhagalia for respondent No.5.
CORAM: H.L GOKHALE,Acg C.J. , & V.M.KANADE, J. DATE: February 14, 2007.
P.C.:-
Heard Ms. Rao in support of this petition,
Mr. Singhvi for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Sayyed AGP for respondent no.4 and Ms. Kiran Bhagalia for respondent No.5.
The petition is filed drawing the attention of this court to the unfortunate washing away of a foot overbridge in Dahisar (East) in the flood in Mumbai on 26th /27th July 2005. The petition prays
that appropriate inquiry be directed and the amount paid for
construction be recovered from whomsoever is found responsible.
i) Whether the design of the said foot overbridge was faulty?
ii) Whether the structural failure of the said bridge
was due to faulty construction including use of substandard material?
iii) Whether there was any negligence on the part of the Engineer/ Architects who supervised the aforesaid foot overbridge?
iv) Whether there was any negligence on the part of the Engineers who were incharge of maintenance of the said bride?
v) Whether there was any negligence on the part of the contractor in carrying out the construction.
i) With respect to the design of the bridge he says that there were some deficiencies and that the same was not done in a professional manner. He has, however, concluded that the draw backs are not such as would cause failure ordinarily under normal floods. The main cause for the collapse is the abnormal flood on 26th July 2005.
ii) On the second question with respect to the faulty construction and use of sub-standard material, he has held that no evidence was available in support of such finding.
Iii) On the third question of negligence of the Engineers/ Architects, who supervised the aforesaid foot overbridge, again he observed that no material has been found. He has, however,
noted that there was nothing on record to show that the foundations for piers were passed by the Executive Engineer or Asst Engineer.
iv) On the fourth question whether there was negligence on the part of the Engineers who were incharge of maintenance of the said bridge, again he has stated that nothing could be specifically said.
v) The fifth question referred to him was with respect to the negligence on the part of the contractor in carrying out the construction of the bridge. Here again he has held that no specific finding could be arrived.
papers. This is recorded in paragraph 5.5. Thus on the one hand Mr Merani has specifically recorded that there was no finding of negligence which he could arrive at and on the other hand he points out several deficiencies in the manner in which the record of the Corporation was maintained. For future he has also number of suggestions which are recorded in paragraph 7 of his report.
Mr. Merani will be compensated for the assistance that he has rendered by making this report. The Municipal Corporation is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to Mr. Merani within two weeks towards his professional charges.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M.KANADE, J.
Ramesh Manohar Nirgun
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
H.L. Gokhale
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
