Dismissed

Smt. Mohani Ganshani v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2012WA/336/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed an appellant's appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition. The Court held it cannot act as a monitoring agency for development works and that no individual right was infringed, rendering the petition illegitimate under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and appeal dismissed in limine.

Smt. Mohani Ganshani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

I; I

W“
l

D‘ivhkm gamh

@. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT 0F: CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘CHHATTISGA'RH!

¶6

Writ‘AppealNo. 3? Q /2012 (DB) (WRIT^APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT jAPPEAL^TODIVISION BENCH! ACT 200 I

¶7

APPELLANT Smt. Moham Gansham, ’W/o PETITIONER Shri Govind Ram Ganshani aged about 57 years Ward Parshad In Ward No 18 ReSIdent .a-éWI...aIaIV “A” of near Sindhi Dharmshala TahSII and District — ' M Baloda Bazar(Chhattlsgarh) ' ' VERSUS \ 1. V State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Urban Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiay, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur Division, Subhash Stadium, District^- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

'The^{DeputyDirector,} Urban Administration and Development, Raipur Division, Subhash Stadium, District^- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipalities Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar,

¶9

(Chhattisgarh) ‘

¶10

ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE 0F, THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION 1C) NO. 291/2012 DATED 29.2.2012^WV

¶11

¶12

DIVISION BENCH

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. ABHAY MANOI-AAR SAPRE & HON’BLE MR. G. MINHA‘JUDDIN JJ.

¶14

Writ Aggeal No. 336(2012

¶15

Smt. Mohani Ganshani

¶16

’Stéte of Chhattisgarh and others

¶17

The following order of the Court was passed bV Abhay hanohar Sagre, J: -

¶18

This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 291/2012 under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the older dated 29/ 2/ 20 12 passed in aforementioned writ petition.

¶19

By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s Writ petition and declined to grant^therelief claimed by her in her Writ petition.

¶20

¶21

¶22

So the question that ariS€s fo;r consideration in this appeal is whether Leamed Single Judge was jus@d in dismissing the appellant’s Writ petition?

¶23

Since the impugned judgiinent is a short but reasoned one, it is apposite to rgpmduce the same in verbatim mm:-

¶24

The following relief has been claimed in this writ yetition:—

¶25

“10.1 The^{Hon’bleCourtmaykindly} be pleased to issue notices to the respondents relating to performance of development work in the vicinity of Balodabazar Municipalities. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue? a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and instructing to the respondent No. 2 and 4 to initiate the development works as mentioned above and to control and prevent the pollutionin the vicinity of Balodabazar. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to gant any other relief. as it may deem tit and appropriate”.

¶26

2 The petitioner is a member of the concerned Municipality in the capacity of^the Councellor, Ward No. 18. According to her, the Government has sanctioned Rs. 1 Crore for the development work for the concerned Municipality and yet various works are .,,. pending and they\ are not completed. ile would submit that ponds are not cleaned, drains are not repaired and public toilet (Sulahh^{Shouchalaya)isnotconstructed.He} draws attention of the Court towards the Chhattisgarh Municipality Act, 1961 and ‘ Article 243 ‘2) (w) of the Constitution of india to submit that the concerned Municipality deserves a command for completing the work.

¶27

@/1

¶28

This Court is not a monitoring agency for carrying out development work in the state. Article 226 of the Congtitution is not meant and cannot be invoked) for monitoring and supervising development work in thousands of Gram Panchayuts, hundreds of Municipalities and in: other places. The petitioner who is an elected representative can raise the issue in the House.

¶29

Learned counsel has relied on judgment of Hon’ble SumemeCourt in the matter of Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardhichcmd and othersreported in Am 1980 SC 1622. The said matter had arisen out of proceeding under Section 133 of Cr. P.C. The petitioner may also approach the concerned Sub Divisional Magstrate under Section 133 of Cr. P.C.

¶30

5.‘ No case for entertaining this writ petition is made out, e it is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

Mere perusal of the aforequoted judgment would go to show that appellant has no case and hence her writ petition^wasrightly dismissed in limine.

¶32

The appellant claims to be the member (Councillor) of Municipality at Baloda Bazar. She complains that though some amount (Rs 1 Crore or so) was given to the Municipality for doing some developmental work in their area but according to her, it is not being either undertaken or if undertaken then the same is not being completed by the Municipality. She therefore wants that this Court should direct the concern Municipality to initiate and complete such work and further this Court should‘monitor its working till it is completed.

¶33

In our opinion, this reliei7 can not be grantedⁱⁿ the wn‘t petition and nor a mandamus of this naturc can be issued in the facts of this case. In the first place, the Wn't petitioner has not filed the; wn't petition as P.I.L. Second, it was filed and decided by the Single Judge (writ Court) not as P.I.L. but as individual writ petition. Third, none of the appellant’s (Writ petitioner’s^{rights)whether} fundamental or personal or'statutOIy or property are infringed as a result of the action or inaction on the part of the respondent. In other words, this peh'tion is not hled by the writ petitioner (appellant) complaining that her lights as Councillor of the Municipality are in jeopardy and adversely ah‘ected due to impugned action or inaction of the Municipality and hence this writ petition to safeguard such right. Fourth, a grievance of such nature can not be tried on judicial side but has to he either at the level of Municipality or at the level of State by approaching to them to solve such administrative issues at their respective end‘ and lastly the Courts are not meant to supervise and monitor the developmental work or otherwise undertaken by the Governmental agencies. In other words, it has never been the function of the Courts to monitor and supervise any construction activities undertaken by the Government or Governmental agencies in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

It is for all these reasons, we are of the considered view that if tiling of the writ petition was misconceived then filing of the»appeal arising out of such Writ petition was equally misconceived and hence writ petition was rightly dismissed as such so also this appeal which also deserves dismissal.

¶35

Learned Counscl^{fortheappellantmadeattempt} to urge that Wlit petition^{wasmaintainableor/ andmlief} t of this nature could be claimed by the wm't petitioner which may not^{beforherselfbutfor} public^atlargebut we are afraid, we can not embark upon this kind of inquiry either in^writ petition^{muéhlessinappealarising} out of such writ petition.

¶36

As a consequence,^{theappeallisalsofoundtobe} devoid of any merit. It' thus fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶37

No order asto^costs.

¶38

f ‘f’ No order asto^costs. .I' , € ( fJ Sd/Sd/{I I 7 , ’ ” hm (Abhay^{ManoharSapfe)} JUDGE JUDGE

¶39

Tiwai‘i

Smt. Mohani Ganshani v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mohani Ganshani v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambika Namdeo and Ors. Vs Awdesh Singh Yadav and Ors.

D.P. Sharaf Vs S.E.C.L. and Anr.

Vs

M/S. J.D.Foods Products Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs Ganesh Ram Chalak

Mahendra Prakash Patel and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.