LAWS(P&H)-2009-4-122

RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On April 15, 2009
RAM SARUP Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition, in public interest, is to seek a Writ of Certiorari quashing the permission dated 03-10-2007 (Annexure P-4) granted to respondent No. 6 for laying of private underground pipeline and also to quash such other permissions granted by respondent No. 5 for laying down underground pipelines.

(2.) THE petitioners have alleged that respondent No. 5, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R) Branch, Fatehabad has granted indiscriminate permissions to private persons for laying underground pipelines along the side of the metalled road. The petitioners had made grievance in respect of permission granted to respondent No. 6 for laying a 1400 ft. long pipeline on Tohana-Saniana Road through letter dated 15-10-2007. In response to information sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondent No. 5 has communicated that such permissions has been granted in terms of instructions dated 20-11-2002 (Annexure P-9). It is alleged that such instructions do not deal with permission to individuals to lay underground pipelines along the side of metalled road.

(3.) IN reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 4, it is pointed out that a letter was received from respondent No. 2 proposing to notify 45 over- exploited blocks within the State of Haryana on the latest ground water assessment. However, in a separate reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 5, it has been pointed out that permission for laying pipeline on Tohana- Saniana Road, RD-18.00 and 19.900 on Katcha berms and six feet away from the metalled road was accorded to respondent No. 6 with the condition that (a) Digging of earth, laying of pipe, relaying of compaction of earth properly and clearing of site will be borne by the applicant; (b) The damages of plant/trees will be the responsibility of the applicant; (c) Any kind of leakage, the applicant will be held responsible for damages of metalled road. It was averred that respondent No. 6 has deposited Rs. 43,637/- and that the permission is for drinking water and for irrigation purposes.