S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner, in his individual capacity, for direction on the respondents to take appropriate measures for removal of the encroachment from the main nala (drain) adjacent to the house of petitioner, as the respondents stated to have failed in discharging their statutory duty.
(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an order passed by this Court on 5th April, 1996, passed in MJC No. 40/96 (R), which reads as follows : "He take serious note of the manner in which the orders of this court are understood and implemented. When this Court orders for the removal of encroachments, all encroachments must be removed, and in particular encroachments on the road side which are part of the road or its flanks, whether temporary or permanent or otherwise, must be removed. We fail to understand why the administration has developed cold feet in taking action which it has to take in public interest. Similarly, we have noticed that our earlier direction with regard to checking of over loading on Auto rickshaws has also met the same face. We shall deal with that matter separately, but this only shows indif - ference shown by the administration to our orders. We shall watch the situation for two weeks, and if there is no improvement law will take its course. This order should be sufficient warning to the authorities that the orders of this Court must be implemented in their true spirit, and with full vigour, and a rigour if necessary. Similar orders have been passed by the Patna High Court in relation to the city of Patna and also other districts. We fail to understand why the Court is required to pass similar orders, in respect of each area separately. The law declared is the same for the entire State. Put up this matter on 23.4.1996. Let the name of Government Pleader No. 1 be shown in the cause list as appearing for the Deputy Commissioner. But the copy of this order be given to Government Pleader No. 1. Sd/ - B.P. Singh Sd/ - A.K. Ganguly." It was pointed out that while the petitioner pointed out the aforesaid fact to the notice of the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, he passed repeated orders, vide Letters Nos. 384 dated 7th April. 1997 and 385 dated 7th April, 1997 and 386, dated 7th April, 1997 whereby and whereunder, one Shri Om Prakash Saraf, Secretary, Nagar Mal Modi Seva Sadan, Ranchi, Shri Madan Lal Bora, Banshidhar Adukia Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, and Shri Md. Imtiyaz, Baralal Street, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, were directed to remove the encroachment from the nala (drain). It is alleged that in spite of the aforesaid order passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, the drain has not been cleared by removing the encroachment.
(3.) AS the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, in individual capacity, this Court is not inclined to pass any specific direction on the respondents. If the order of the High Court, as referred above, and/or the order passed by the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi has not been complied, the petitioner may bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi.;