3 min readMumbaiOct 9, 2024 12:04 AM IST
First published on: Oct 8, 2024 at 12:37 PM IST
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday disposed of the contempt petition filed by a lawyer alleging non-compliance with the 2018 orders of HC by civic authorities to repair potholes along all arterial roads in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR).
A division of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar passed a judgement in a contempt petition by lawyer Ruju Thakker and found that authorities had made efforts for compliance with the 2018 directions, and therefore, were not in contempt of the said orders. However, they “fell short of complete compliance”, the bench added.
In February and April 2018, a division bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka (now a Supreme Court judge) passed orders on a suo motu PIL, directing the repairing of potholes along all arterial roads in the city and devising a uniform mechanism to redress citizens’ grievances related to bad roads and potholes.
However, considering the “public welfare and importance”, the court revived the suo motu PIL in which the court passed directions in 2018 and sought detailed replies from the civic authorities.
“This court is of the considered opinion that respondents have made bonafide efforts for compliance with directions, therefore, they cannot be held to have committed contempt of orders dated February 24 and April 12, 2018. However, taking into consideration the public welfare and public importance of directions, in the light of the recognition of fundamental rights under Article 21, the PIL stands revived. Respondents are directed to take immediate corrective action and ensure full compliance with the directions of this court of 2018,” the bench held.
“The respondents shall submit a detailed compliance report through the affidavit in reply within eight weeks from today, failing which other coercive steps shall be taken against them Contempt petition stands disposed of,” the bench added and posted PIL hearing to December 3.
The bench noted that as per BMC’s reply, except 81 kilometres out of 2050 kilometres of road, rest of the roads have been concretised, or the work is in progress and similar is the situation in other municipal corporation areas, therefore there is substantial compliance of 2018 orders. However, it added that there was insufficient evidence to show the grievance redressal mechanisms were effective or accessible to public.
The HC said that the bench was “concerned about the serious risk posed by the open manholes, which may result in loss of human life in such cases, therefore measures need to be taken in public interest”.
Justice Borkar for the bench observed, “The poor condition of some roads, failure to establish fully functional Grievance Redressal Mechanism operational throughout the year, piecemeal approach to pothole repairs and lack of precautions for some open manholes collectively show that the respondents have not completely fulfilled directions under 2018 orders…”
Therefore, the bench said the authorities must be directed to complete remaining work without any further delay and 2018 directions being “public welfare measures”, need to be complied with “in letter and spirit”.
Disposing of the contempt plea, the court added that the authorities should promptly address grievances by “bringing up a culture of administrative responsiveness and accountability” and also display information regarding ongoing works.
This came after the civic body submitted that while they remove unauthorised hawkers, it was the duty of the police to keep them off the footpaths. 
Share
