ARUN MISHRA,CJ - (1.) THE contempt petition no.90/2010 arises out of non-compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation relating to saving of most majestic and splendid Udaipur city of lakes which is attracting tourists from various countries to Udaipur. Lakes are situated amidst the historic relics of Mewar founded in 1559 AD. Udaipur Lake system is very old and well known in the country for its scenic beauty. There are many lakes in Udaipur City and they are life-line of the inhabitants of City of Udaipur. These lakes are feeding, storing and collecting fresh rain water from respective catchment area and they are directly or indirectly connected with each other. The main lakes are Pichhola lake, Swaroop Sagar lake, Fateh Sagar Lake, Badi lake, Udai Sagar Lake etc.
(2.) PEOPLE of Udaipur District are making use of water of lakes for drinking as well as for irrigation and industrial purposes. However, these major water resources have gone degraded by sewage disposal, bathing, washing and other activities including domestic waste. The heritage of Udaipur lakes and their catchment have been confronting number of challenges to their very existence and from time to time, this Court had issued various directions in the writ applications with respect to conservation of lakes, prohibition of construction activities in and around lakes as well as in 'No Construction Zone' declared by the State Government. The State Government in exercise of the power under section 171 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1959") issued Notification dated 17.1.1997 declaring areas of 'No Construction Zone' in and around Fateh Sagar Lake and Pichhola Lake. The said Notification was modified vide Notification dated December, 1999 further specifying "Prohibited Areas" and 'Restricted Construction Zone' near lakes and other places of Udaipur City. Thereafter, the Notification dated 10.12.1999 was partially modified vide Notification dated 16th March, 2000 to the effect that permission for "repair and plaster" shall be granted by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for short "the UIT") and Municipal Council, Udaipur in the 'No Construction Zone' & 'Prohibited Areas' falling in their respective area, but permission for addition, alteration and construction shall be granted only after approval/sanction of the State Government.
(3.) CONSIDERING the Notifications issued by the State Government as well as for conservation of lakes system, the Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Razdan V/s State of Rajasthan (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4271/1999), passed final order on 6th February, 2007 discussing various lakes and their importance and it was observed that the present day Society has a responsibility towards the posterity for their proper growth and development so as to allow the posterity to breathe normally and live in a cleaner environment and have a consequent fuller development; there is constitutional obligation to ensure that there is no degradation of environment. Considering the decision of this Court in Abdul Rehman V/s State of Rajasthan (2004(4) WLC (Raj.) 435) and other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Razdan (supra) issued requisite directions with respect to sewerage system, de-silting, hyacinth, solid waste management, removal of encroachment from catchment area, no construction zone and also appreciated the efforts made by petitioners-Rajendra Kumar Razdan and Dr.Tej Razdan for the noble cause taken by them with great ability and sincerity. The Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to consider establishment of Lakes Development Authority under the Statute; take effective steps so as not to permit any sort of construction within the 'No Construction Zone'; desilting of lakes was ordered; conversion and construction permission in and around the lakes and in their respective catchment areas was completely banned except the rarest of rare exceptional case; catchment areas of the lakes were ordered to be earmarked; submerged peta land of the lakes was also directed to be earmarked and it must be ensured that no human activities are carried on in the said area.;