R. C. Lahoti, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Patna is seized of a hearing in public interest exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution. The High Court is feeling concerned over the drainage system, the sewerage system, the drinking water supply system, the kerb on the road being in shambles and reallocating of footpaths. The High Court seems to have chosen one road as model habitat area so as to set an example for other roads conforming with the discipline governing urbanization and urban planning according to law and ensuring that future generations get a safer city to live in, a civic city, with civic amenities, for the benefit of civic citizens. The High Court has been issuing orders in the nature of continuing mandamus and has also been monitoring the compliance. On 1-10-2001, the High Court passed an interim order containing the following directions : (a) The street alignment is in a straight or a gentle curve natural to the road and the set backs, from the centre of the road, as indicated in the details given to the Court in column 3, are maintained. Buildings eclipsed by a 110 (feet) distance on either side of the road are to be identified; (b) The storm-drain will be planned so that they run contiguous to the boundary alignment of the six properties shown and measured, reference order dated 28 September, 2001; (c) The flanks/footpaths/side walks will run parallel in a straight line between the storm-drain and the carriage width of the metal road; and (d) At any intersection of the Bailey Road, a diameter of 100 metres from the centre of the road will be planned as a protected area and set backs laid so that there is no blind spot or obstruction to sight. Minimum frontage and set back off this circumference is to be maintained at 110 (feet). One of the effects of the proceedings before the High Court and the orders passed therein was the restraint of all construction work on the entire stretch of the public street, the Bailey road, within 110 feet from the centre of the road on either side. The local authorities were restrained from approving any map for construction within the said stretch of the area.
(2.) It appears that there were a few builders/developers engaged in construction activity and the interim order dated 1-10-2001 had the effect of bringing their construction activity to a standstill substantially. On 17-9-2002, seven of them filed a petition in this Court seeking special leave to appeal against the High Courts order dated 1-10-2001. In the cause title they had described themselves as interveners/petitioners. It appears that they were not parties to, nor were noticed in, those proceedings in which the order dated 1-10-2001 came to be passed, at least they say so in their application seeking permission to file SLP accompanying the SLP. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 28-10-2002, an obvious query raised by the Court and put to the learned counsel for the petitioners was that if, on their own showing, they were not parties impleaded before the High Court, then why should they not approach the High Court putting forth their case and grievance, if any, and pray for vacating or modifying the interim order dated 1-10-2001 passed by the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners seems to have brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners had already applied for vacation of the interim order dated 1-10-2001 before the High Court. This Court, in its order dated 28-10-2002, held - "In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners may approach the Honble the Chief Justice for expediting the hearing of the said matter. We hope and trust that the matter would be decided at an early date".
(3.) On April 5, 2003, I.A. Nos. 8-9 of 2003 were filed by the petitioners in this Court submitting that their applications praying for vacating of the interim order dated 1-10-2001 were already filed on 16/17-7-2002 but till date no date has been fixed for hearing the stay vacate application of theirs. It is also mentioned in the application that mentioning slips were submitted which were taken on record to be put up when the Bench is available. It was further stated that after the order of this Court dated 28-10-2002 such mentioning slips were filed before the Honble the Chief Justice on 21-11-2002, 12-12-2002 and 16-1-2003 praying for early listing of the matter but no orders were passed. The averments made in the application are supported by affidavit and also documents which consist mostly of the copies of records of proceedings in High Court. The applicants had sought for recalling of the order of this Court disposing of the SLP, the SLPs being taken up for hearing and the operation of the interim order dated 1-10-2001 passed by the Patna High Court being stayed. The applicants enclosed a chart (Annexure P-8) with the application setting out the amount of monetary loss which they had already suffered and were continuing to suffer month by month on account of their applications to vacate the stay not being taken up for hearing by the High Court.;