Disposed

Mohammed Afzal and 2 Ors. v. the Public Works Department, State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2012PIL/58/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning inadequate inspection of lifts under the Bombay Lifts Act, 1939, the Court was satisfied by the Government's reply and proposal for legislative amendment. The matter was disposed of without interim directions, allowing a fresh petition after 31 March 2013.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed with liberty to file fresh PIL after 31 March 2013.

Mohammed Afzal and 2 Ors. Vs the Public Works… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

gopi

¶2

pil-58-2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONNO.58 OF 2010

¶6

Mr. Mohammed Afzal & Ors.

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Public Works Department & Anr...Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Jalan for the petitioners. Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for respondents.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 27 September 2012.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The grievance in this public interest litigation is that the respondent authorities are not carrying out inspection of lifts in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Lifts Act, 1939 which requires the authorities under the Act to inspect the lifts twice a year. It is submitted that on account of inadequate number of Engineers in the Electrical Department and the Public Works Department of the State Government the respondents are not implementing the provisions of the Act.

¶14

In the affidavit in reply dated 25 September 2012 it is stated that at present there are 86 Assistant Engineers, Grade II/Sectional Engineer/Junior Engineer available for lifts inspection. Ms. Geeta Shastri, the learned A.G.P., further states that over and above 86 Assistant Engineers, etc., there are 12 Deputy Executive Engineers and 2 Executive Engineers discharging their duties under the Bombay Lifts Act. The 12 Deputy Executive Engineers and two Executive Engineers are discharging supervisory duties. It is further

1/4

gopi

pil-58-2010

stated that in the year 2012-13 the work of inspection of 8,1468 lifts in the State of Maharashtra will be completed atleast once in a year.

¶19

As regards the petitioners' grievance that inspection is not being done twice a year as required under the provisions of the Act, the learned A.G.P., submits that in various other States the provision regarding inspection of lifts once in a year or once in 3 years, as under:-

¶20

The Delhi Lifts and Escalators Bill, 2010 (proposed) – Once in a year.

¶21

The Gujarat Lifts and Escalator Act, 2000 – Once in 3 years.

¶22

The West Bengal Lifts and Escalators Act, 1955 – Once in a year.

¶23

The Tamilnadu Lift Act, 1997 – Once in a year.

¶24

The Haryana Lift and Escalator Act, 2008 – Once in 3 years.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned A.G.P., that in view of the above, a proposal was made by the Chief Engineer (Electrical) of the Public Works Department of the State Government for amendment of the Bombay Lifts Act 1939. The said proposal was submitted on 20 April 2011, but due to recent fire at Mantralaya the papers which were processed came to be destroyed and, therefore, a fresh proposal has been put up to reconstruct the papers of the P.W.D. It is submitted that in view of the above, once the proposal for amendment of the Act is accepted, the statutory duty would be inspection of lifts once in a year instead of once in six months. It is also stated that in the year 2012-13 the inspection of 81,468 lifts will be completed in the State of Maharashtra and this will be on the basis of inspection of the lifts once in a year. It is also pointed out that in the quarter from April,

2/4

gopi

pil-58-2010

2012 to June, 2012, 11853 lifts have been inspected in the city of Mumbai, Thane and Pune districts and in the remaining districts of State of Maharashtra 1095 lifts were inspected. In the year 2011-12, 16 number of accidents were reported, out of which 7 accidents were fatal.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since hardly about 13,000 lifts were inspected in the first quarter of this year it will not be possible for the respondents to complete even one inspection a year of all the lifts in the State.

¶31

The learned A.G.P., thereupon states that since a number of Engineers were on leave in the month of May 2011, the number of inspections was comparatively on the lower side. However, the authorities will ensure that by the end of the year 2012-13 i.e. by 31 March 2013 all the lifts in the State of Maharashtra will be inspected atleast once in a year.

¶32

The learned A.G.P., further states that the particulars about the lifts being inspected are uploaded on the website of the public Works Department at www.mahapwd.com and accordingly the public at large will have access to the information about the inspection of the lifts in the State of Maharashtra.

¶33

In view of the above, we are satisfied that nothing further is required to be done at this stage.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that since the Act is not amended as yet, the respondents have failed in discharging their statutory duties. Having regard to the fact that the proposal for moving amendment of the Bombay Lifts Act is pending consideration of the State Government, we are of the view

3/4

pil-58-2010

gopi

that the Government cannot be prevented from taking any steps for amendment of the provisions of the Bombay Lifts Act. The learned A.G.P., states that necessary steps are being taken to see that the Legislation for amendment of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Lifts Act is placed before the Legislature as early as possible.

¶39

After recording the above statements, the PIL is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh PIL, if so required, after 31 March 2013.

¶40

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶42

4/4

Mohammed Afzal and 2 Ors. v. the Public Works Department, State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Afzal and 2 Ors. v. the Public Works Department, State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rail Parishad (N.G.O., through, President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Adivasi Manglam Krishi Vikas Samajik Sansthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Tukaram Autade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayyed Fahimoddin Sayyed Fayazuddin Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Abdul Nasir Abdul Samad Jalal Vs Divisional Commissoner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Dhiryasheel Vijay Sutar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Tripathi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil G. Gidwani Vs Chief Justice Mumbai High Court

Hrim Finance and Securities Private Limited Vs National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.

Dyes and Chemical Workers Union Vs J.D. Orgochem Ltd.

Zarir Rustom Joshi Vs Burzor Rustom Joshi and Ors.

Ashok Moreshwar Dahanukar and Nalini Madhukant Bhagwan Vs Subodh Lalubhai Bhansali and Ors.

Susme Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Om Namo Sujlam Suflam Chs. and Anr.

M/S Jagson International Ltd. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.