Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 426 (UTT)

Ajay Singh Rawat v. Union of India

2014-09-25

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
Judgment CLMA No. 5815 of 2014, CLMA No. 10106 of 2014 Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Addl. Advocate General fairly submitted that issues raised in these applications should be taken into consideration while issuing appropriate directions about the preservation and beautification of the Sukha Tal Lake. In view of the above statements, applications stand disposed of accordingly. CLMA No. 8554 of 2014, CLMA No. 8555 of 2014, CLMA No. 8560 of 2014, CLMA No. 8561 of 2014, CLMA No. 9822 of 2014, CLMA No. 9918 of 2014, CLMA No. 10356 of 2014, CLMA No. 10873 of 2014, CLMA No. 10874 of 2014, CLMA No. 11058 of 2014, CLMA No. 11059 of 2014 Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel undertakes to serve copies of these applications to the learned counsel for the respondents within three days. Learned Addl. Advocate General seeks and is granted three weeks’ time to file reply to these applications. CLMA No. 10646 of 2014, CLMA No. 10647 of 2014 Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the applicants does not want to press these applications. Dismissed as not pressed. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel, appearing for the Municipality, Nainital has handed over affidavit of Rohitash Sharma, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Nainital which is taken on record. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the Municipality seeks and is granted time to examine as to whether Municipality is competent to recover Lake Bridge toll tax from all the vehicles entering into the Municipal area of Nainital Municipality or same can be recovered only from those who intend to use Mall Road by crossing Lake Bridge. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the Lake Development Authority contended that few cases are pending disposal with the Development Authority pertaining to the ceiling and demolition of unauthorized construction raised either without getting map sanctioned or in violation of the sanctioned map. He undertakes to place on record details of such cases. He shall also place on record details of appeals pending before the Chairman of Lake Development Authority pertaining to the unauthorized constructions. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Addl. He undertakes to place on record details of such cases. He shall also place on record details of appeals pending before the Chairman of Lake Development Authority pertaining to the unauthorized constructions. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Addl. Advocate General contents that appropriate steps shall be taken immediately for preservation and maintenance of retaining wall on the road starting from Masjid Tirraha and going towards Raj Bhawa and all the boulders hanging dangerously on this road shall be removed to avoid any untoward incident and casualty. Learned Addl. Advocate General further contends that learned Commissioner is taking personal interest to take appropriate steps to stop landslide in Baliya Nala area. He further contends that habitants of Baliya Nala area are in the process of rehabilitation and appropriate steps shall be taken to demolish dangerous, dilapidated or illegal constructions from the Baliya Nala dangerous or catchment area. Learned Addl. Advocate General further contends that all the requisite reports are still awaited from the I.I.T. Roorkee and other experts for the preservation and beautification of Sukha Tal Lake area and the moment same is received shall be placed before this Court. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the Lake Development Authority and Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the municipality contended that after observation was made by this Court at the earlier dates fixed that what steps Government was contemplating to rehabilitate the hawkers, there is unusual rush of new hawkers in the city of Nainital. Therefore, no new hawker license shall be issued. Mr. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Patni, learned counsel for the municipality, in all fairness, submitted that license of all the hawkers shall be checked and verified. All of them further contend that since there is an unusual rush of the hawkers now-a-days, therefore, police verification shall also be got done. All of them further contend that no unlicensed hawker shall be allowed to use any part of Pant Park, Mall Road or other roads and parks within the Municipal area of Nainital. On being asked as to what steps have been taken to improve the medical facilities in B.D. Pande, Hospital, Mr. All of them further contend that no unlicensed hawker shall be allowed to use any part of Pant Park, Mall Road or other roads and parks within the Municipal area of Nainital. On being asked as to what steps have been taken to improve the medical facilities in B.D. Pande, Hospital, Mr. Negi, fairly contended that in the light of earlier orders passed by this Court, notices have already been issued and are being issued to the encroachers who are in illegal possession of the land belonging to the Hospital. He further contended that general Surgeon as well as Specialists shall be posted in B.D. Pande Hospital at the earliest. Learned counsel appearing for the parties shall examine the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed in Appellate Side Writ Petition (PIL) No. 111 of 2005, People for Elimination of Stray Troubles by its Convener v. State of Goa, judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 9902 of 2012 (O&M), Kuljit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab and others, judgment of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of New Friends Colony Residents v. Union of India and others as well as scope of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, to suggest appropriate steps to control menace of monkeys, street cattles and stray dogs. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the applicants has shown his apprehension that District Administration as well as Municipality may proceed hurriedly to demolish the structures soon after expiry of fifteen days notice period. We would like to point out that if a noticee has approached this Court showing his cause against the notice, no action shall be taken against him till decision is taken by this Court. We also clarify that if fifteen days period of notice expires during the vacation of the Court, no action should be taken till Court reopens so that on the reopening of the Court noticee may approach this Court by way of filing his affidavit showing cause to the notice issued to him. We also clarify that if fifteen days period of notice expires during the vacation of the Court, no action should be taken till Court reopens so that on the reopening of the Court noticee may approach this Court by way of filing his affidavit showing cause to the notice issued to him. We direct that the encroachment already removed or illegal constructions already demolished from the road/public property or from the nalas carrying rainwater to the Naini Lake shall not be allowed to be re-raised either temporarily or permanently and the District Administration shall take immediate appropriate steps to stop this. We also clarify that unless and until a concrete proposal is placed before us for the rehabilitation of settled Shop Keepers of Tibetan (Bhotiya) market, no action shall be taken against them, however, in the garb of this order no person shall be allowed to occupy new place in the Tibetan (Bhotia) market area. List on 30.10.2014.