This order disposes of a writ petition assailing lack of precautionary measures during railway blasting. The court found that after filing, no blasting occurred and the Contractor had been warned against such activities.
Writ Petition disposed; if any illegal blasting is carried on, Respondents 3 and 4 to take appropriate action.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.18333 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking precautionary measures to protect the surrounding properties while proceeding with the blasting process at KM 48/7-8, Mellacheruvu yard, near level crossing, Suryapet despite representations of the petitioner dated 21.02.2018, 26.02.2018 and 21.05.2018.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.N.Shashikala, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 & 2 denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition stating that the representations made by the petitioner have been brought to the notice of the Contractor and advised him to be more careful while executing the work. It is stated that in terms of Indian Railway Standard General Conditions of Contract, the contractors are solely responsible for safe working during execution of works and that the allegations are made against Contractor, but he is not arrayed as a party, as such, the Writ Petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the Writ Petition, no blasting was undertaken by the Contractor.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 3 & 4, produced written instructions stating that basing on the contents of the complaint of the petitioner, a notice
ARR,J WP_18333_2018
2
dated 23.02.2018 was issued to Teja Constructions, Hyderabad, who is the Contractor and in response to the said notice, the said Teja Constructions issued a reply dated 26.02.2018 stating that during the construction of RUB (Road Under Bridge) activities, there is no damage caused to the nearby house of Smt. Meedagam Padmapetitioner and that no blasting activities are being carried on, but they are breaking the stones by machines.
Learned Standing Counsel for Railways submits that the Railway administration has also informed the Contractor not to undertake any blasting.
Recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, if any blasting is carried on by the contractor illegally, without valid permission, the respondents 3 and 4 to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
03-07-2018 kvs
ARR,J WP_18333_2018
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.18333 of 2018
Date 03.07.2018.
ARR,J WP_18333_2018
4
kvs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable amidst the non-joinder of the Contractor, the actual entity responsible for safe working.
Whether the Railways and relevant authorities took sufficient action to prevent illegal blasting activities threatening nearby properties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Meedagam Padma
Railways
Home
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
