DINESH BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-2-38
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on February 26,2013

DINESH BHARDWAJ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH,.J. - (1.) IN this Public Interest Litigation, petitioner has highlighted the fact that respondent No. 2, Haridwar Development Authority, has identified that certain unauthorised constructions have been made and all those constructions are without any sanction and that such constructions are within 200 meters from the banks of river Ganges and also that the people responsible for making those constructions were given opportunity of hearing and, after hearing them, orders were passed for demolition of those unauthorised constructions, but, Haridwar Development Authority could not execute its orders because people of the locality resisted Haridwar Development Authority to carry out demolition. In the circumstances, the public interest litigant has projected that, despite unauthorised constructions having been made within 200 meters from the banks of river Ganges, those having been identified and the people having been given opportunity to justify their stand regarding those illegal constructions and they having not been able to justify the same; Haridwar Development Authority is unable to discharge its public function of demolishing those illegal constructions because those who have made illegal constructions, with their muscle power, are preventing Haridwar Development Authority to discharge its public obligations. Each of those people, responsible for making illegal constructions, has been made a party to the writ petition.
(2.) SMT . Anjana Goyal, respondent No. 8, is not represented by any lawyer. She has been served, but has not filed any counter affidavit. Same is the case insofar as respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are concerned.
(3.) MAHENDRA Singh, respondent No. 11, is represented by Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate. The learned counsel is present in Court and has fairly submitted that the construction, in question, was being made without sanction. On our query, he fairly contended that, before the construction was started, no application for obtaining sanction was submitted. There is no dispute that the construction is within 200 meters from the banks of river Ganges and that such construction commenced subsequent to 31st July, 2000, i.e. the date when the Government issued a Notice pursuant to the directions issued by the Honble Allahabad High Court that no construction shall be permitted within 200 meters from the banks of river Ganges. Respondent No. 12 is Mr. C.S. Sharma (C.M. Sharma). He is represented by Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate. The learned counsel is present in Court and has submitted that the construction, in the instant case, has been carried out, may be within 200 meters from the banks of river Song, but not within 200 meters from the banks of river Ganges, inasmuch as, the area of construction is situate about 12 kms. away from river Ganges. In the notice issued to C.S. Sharma by Haridwar Development Authority dated 3rd November, 2008, it has been stated that the impugned construction by C.S. Sharma is within 200 meters from the banks of river Ganges. There is, therefore, a dispute as to whether the construction, in question, commenced by C.S. Sharma, is situate within 200 meters from the banks of river Ganges or not.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.