- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State submitted that so far encroachments have not been removed which are said to be the road Block in the construction of the Bridge in question. This admission by itself constitutes a serious contempt of orders of this Court. The contempt having been committed, punishment has to be awarded. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that if 15 day time is given, then they will come out clean and encroachments will be removed and orders of this Court will be complied.
(2.) THIS Court proposes a fine of Rs. one lac per day, which is being prayed to be deferred by the learned counsel for the State by saying that after 15 days, such fine may be put in operation if the encroachments are not removed. The officer concerned present in Court is also in the line of the admissions made by the State counsel guilty of the contempt because the orders of this Court have so far been not complied and an entry in his A.C.R. is required to be recorded for his inefficiency in obeying the orders of this Court but this also is deferred for 15 days pursuant to the submissions of the learned counsel for the State. In case the State and the officers fail to get the order of this Court complied within 15 days, the fine will start running so also the State will require to make entry in the confidential roll of the officer of his incompetence. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 submits that they were given contract only in December, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an undertaking before this Court was given by the State officials in the year 2006 that the bridge would be constructed by April, 2008. All this shows that how callously the State officials and also the contractor has handled the situation. The State Government had given undertaking to this Court that the bridge would be constructed by April, 2008 which has not come into being obviously for the reasons for which the contractor is at a difficult situation where he says that he cannot make constructions because there are encroachments. The State Officials are not removing the encroachments and are awaiting for something to happen since 2006. This Court took cognizance of this situation and the State counsel made a statement and therefore, the State's inefficiency is reflected that from 2006 till date they have not been able to remove the encroachments. This kind of situation asks for much to be answered. Learned counsel for the contractor submits that though they are functioning but they are not in a position to function at a speed at which they are expected to function.
(3.) IN the earlier part of the order, undertaking of the learned counsel for the State has been recorded. IN case, that undertaking comes out to be true, the contractor will have all the options to work; otherwise the statement of the learned counsel for the contractor that he is incurring loss makes a situation where a special venture which is said to have been created for this purpose, becomes redundant and this kind of situation cannot be appreciated. On this issue the orders will be passed on 25.03.2011. Put up this matter on 25.03.2011.;