Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 120 (JHR)

Rajneesh Mishra v. Union of India

2011-02-22

BHAGWATI PRASAD, DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Whatever has transpired today in Court only shows that the two agencies i.e. Ranchi Municipal Corporation and Ranchi Regional Development Authority have not performed upto the expectation of this Court. Not only that, they have derelicted in their duties so much so that a Mobile Operator has come up before this Court for extension of time, which was required to be sealed by this time, as per the orders of this Court. 3. This only shows that it may be a tacit consent or non performance on the part of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. Though, earlier due to such performance of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority, this Court commented upon in the last order but it continues with the same kind of lethargy and indifference, which cannot be appreciated. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for RRDA has stated that they do not have the working force of Engineers to perform the work. 5. The learned Counsel for the State has assured that if the RRDA engages the Engineers on contract, sufficient fund will be given to it for performing any kind of activities with regard to encroachment of removal. 6. However, the learned Counsel for the RRDA again raises the question of security. 7. This Court fails to understand that what kind of security they need and if at all they needed, whether they asked the Deputy Commissioner for the same, who on the last date of hearing had assured this Court that any kind of required security will be supplied to the officials of the RRDA. 8. The learned Counsel for the RRDA is not in a position to tell this Court how much force it demanded which was not supplied to it by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the conduct of both the Agencies are not appreciated. However, it is considered appropriate to give them one more opportunity. Let the matter be again listed on 4th March,2011 to see their performance and improvement and they should not raise the issue that they are presently engaged in few other important work of the city. They should address to this Court, on the next date, that they have also worked on the Master Plan of the city. 10. Let the matter be again listed on 4th March,2011 to see their performance and improvement and they should not raise the issue that they are presently engaged in few other important work of the city. They should address to this Court, on the next date, that they have also worked on the Master Plan of the city. 10. The application of the AIRCEL regarding extension of time for removing the encroachment is rejected because though they have already received the notice but have not removed the encroachment yet. In the interest of justice, they are permitted to remove their encroachment upto 25th February,2011. Learned Counsel has agreed to deposit a fine of one lakh rupees for their action.