UPENDRA BAXI II Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has come up for hearing in view of certain developments which have taken place since the making of our last Order. It was on the basis of a letter addresed by the petitioners that this writ petition came to be entertained by the Court. The petitioners pointed out in the letter which was treated as a writ petition that the conditions in which girls were living in the Government Protective Home at Agra were abominable and they were being denied their right to live with basic human dignity by the State of Uttar Pradesh which was running the Protective Home. The Court thereupon made various orders from time to time with a view to improving the living conditions of the girls in the Protective Home and ensuring a decent and healthy standard of living for them. The Court also asked the District Judge to make periodic inspections of the Protective Home with a view to monitoring full and effective implementation of the various orders made by the Court from time to time. The District Judge himself or an Additional district Judge nominated by him, inspected the Protective Home from time to time and submitted Inspection Reports which came up for consideration before the Court on various occasions. it appears that the efforts made by the petitioners aided by Dr. R. S. Sodhi, Honorary General Secretary, Association for Social Health in India, were nearing successful conclusion when everything which had been done by the Court in order to improve the living conditions of the inmates of the Protective Home was set at naught by the State Government by shifting the Protective Home from its location in Vijaynagar colony to Adarsh Nagar Rajwara .

(2.) The accommodation in the premises in Vijaynagar colony had been made fairly satisfactory by the State Government pursuant to the orders made by the Court from time to time and the living conditions had considerably improved. But sometime in March, 1984 Dr. R. S. Sodhi who lived in Agra (he died some time back) came to know that the State Government was contemplating shifting of the Protective Home from the Vijaynagar colony to another locality. Immediately, on coming to know of this contemplated move on behalf of the State Government, Dr. R. S. Sodhi in a letter dated 14th March 1984 addressed to the District Judge, Agra pointed out that since the matter was pending in the Court, the Protective Home should not be shifted without the permission of the Court and the District Judge in his Inspection Report dated 15th March 1984 drew attention to this fact. The District Judge also in his Inspection Report dated 11th May, 1984 once again pointed out that he had already made it clear that "in case the Government wants to shift the Government Protective Home to any other building, the contention of Dr. Sodhi that permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is mandatory, may be considered seriously before taking any steps in this regard. The District Judge reiterated in his Inspection Report dated 5th January 1985 that "since the writ petition concerning the welfare of the inmates and smooth running of the Protective Home is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the shifting of the Home to new building is concerned with this subject, hence it will be advisable for the Administration and the Government to seek prior approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before shifting the Home to the new building". It seems, however, that no steps were taken by the State Government or the Administration to obtain the permission of this Court for shifting the Protective Home to another building and without obtaining such permission the State Government, some time in the middle of 1985, surrendered possession of the premises in Vijaynagar colony to the landlord and shifted the Protective Home to new premises in Adarsh Nagar, Rajwara. It may be pointed out that the landlord had filed a suit against the State Government for eviction from the premises in Vijaynagar colony but the suit was ultimately dismissed and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court of Allahabad. There was, therefore, no pressure on the State Government to vacate the premises in Vijaynagar colony. Yet, the State Government surrendered possession of the premises to the landlord and accepted from him tenancy of the premises in Adarsh Nagar, Rajwara. Perturbed by this action on the part of the State Government, Dr. R. S. Sodhi addressed a letter dated 17th June, 1985 to the District Judge drawing his attention to the shifting of the Protective Home to the new premises without the permission of this Court and on the basis of this letter, the District Judge instructed the Additional District Judge to visit the new premises and to submit a report in regard to the comparative facilities of security, toilet and other amenities available in the new premises as compared to the old premises. The Additional District Judge after visiting the new premises submitted a Report dated 17th July 1985 in which he pointed out the following facts:

(3.) The only argument put forward in the affidavit of Shri Ram Swarup, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in support of shifting the Protective Home, was that the landlord was prepared to give more than double the carpet area in the new building at the same rent, viz., Rs. 375/- p.m. and the landlord had agreed to renovate and reconstruct the new building so as to make it fit for the Protective Home. We do not think we can accept this as a valid argument. It is no doubt true that the carpet area in the new building is almost double that in the old building but, as is clear from the Inspection Reports of the Additional District Judge dated 17th July 1985 and 2nd September 1985, the new building is from the point of view of security, safety and other facilities very much inferior to the old building. We do not wish to repeat what has been stated by the learned Additional District Judge in the two Inspection Reports dated 17th July and 2nd September 1985, but from every point of view, except the carpet area, the new building is unsatisfactory and it is indeed surprising that the Administration should have opted in favour of the new building. Moreover, if it is true that the landlord agreed to renovate and reconstruct the new building with a view to making it fit for the Protective Home, it is difficult to understand why the Protective Home should have been shifted to the new building without the necessary renovation and reconstruction having been carried out by the landlord. The landlord should have been asked to put up windows in the hall, kitchen and the other three rooms for the purpose of providing cross ventilation, to carry out necessary repairs and renovation in the new building and to change the entire electrical wiring and the electric meter before shifting the Protective Home. But, none of these changes was required to be carried out by the landlord before shifting the Protective Home and it is indeed regrettable that Shri Ram Swarup should have stated in his affidavit that the State Government proposes to carry out the necessary repairs and renovation instead of requiring the landlord to do so as agreed by him. Should we not expect greater concern about public expenditure