Disposed

Himanshu Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Sept 2021WPPIL/149/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding alleged irregularities in a drinking water pipeline project under the Jal Jeewan Mission, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate with a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach District Magistrate, Dehradun with a representation within two weeks for inspection of the scheme.

Himanshu Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand — Environment and Pollution | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

ON THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶5

AND

¶6

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶7

Writ Petition (PIL) No. 149 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Himanshu Bhatt

… Petitioner

(By Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents

¶14

(By Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. B.S. Bisht, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 7)

¶15

JUDGEMENT

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

Petitioner is a resident of Ashutosh Enclave, Gali No. 1, Village Kandarwala, Post Office Bhaniyawala, District Dehradun.

¶18

According to the petitioner, since the old pipeline was worn out, therefore, State Government had sanctioned a new pipeline for supply of drinking water to his village under a Scheme known as “Jal Jeewan Mission”.

¶19

In this Public Interest Litigation, petitioner had contended that several irregularities have been committed by the Agency, which constructed the new pipeline, inasmuch as, not

¶20

¶21

only the alignment of the pipeline was changed to favour some private individuals, but also substandard material, including inferior pipes, were used.

¶22

Per contra, Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 to 7 has disputed the contentions raised by petitioner in this PIL and submits that everything was done as per sanctioned Detailed Project Report.

¶23

Since petitioner has raised an issue regarding change of alignment and also use of sub-standard material, while constructing the drinking water pipeline, therefore, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioner is permitted to approach District Magistrate, Dehradun, in a representative capacity, and the District Magistrate shall look into the matter, and if need be constitute a committee to have the aforesaid Scheme inspected. Thereafter, he shall pass an order, in accordance with law, within some stipulated time frame.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach District Magistrate, Dehradun by making a representation. If such representation is made within two weeks from today, District Magistrate shall look into the allegations, and if need be, he shall also constitute a committee of Technical Experts, and based on such report to be submitted by Technical Experts, District Magistrate shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within three months.

¶25

¶26

However, if any grievance of the petitioner still remains, after the decision of the District Magistrate, Dehradun, he shall be at liberty to again approach this Court.

¶27

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶28

(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)

¶29

Aswal

Himanshu Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjani Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rinkan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Kumar Batla Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Singh Rana Vs Stae of Uttarakhand

Chandra Singh Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand