ARVIND KUMAR Vs. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After much persuasion and several adjournments, facts which have now come on the records of this case project a pathetic state of affairs in the field of implementation and enforcement of laws, at least, by the authorities and functionaries of the Patna Municipal Corporation. Orders in a vigilance case, restraining the petitioner from proceeding with some construction on his property, and its communication to the local police for the needful, had brought the petitioner to this Court. Petitioner claimed that, with mala fide design, the private respondent had filed the complaint with the Corporation, which had resulted into said orders, though he had already got the plan of extension of his old residential house approved by one of the empanelled architects of the Corporation. He claimed that, in fact, the private respondent was raising a dispute of title and possession, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Vigilance Officer of the Corporation to decide. At one stage in the case, a curiosity arose to this Court to know as to in what manner the decades old Building Bye-laws (having statutory force at least with the framing of Bihar Planning Standards and Building Bye-laws, 1981 in terms of Section 80(k) of the Bihar Regional Development Ordinance, 1981, were being enforced by the Corporation, and whether or not, the vigilance cases, supposedly initiated for violation of the same, are serving some useful purpose in this regard. In the circumstances, this Court requested learned counsel for the Corporation to produce the figures with regard to pending vigilance cases, registered after preliminary enquiry, with their stage, and of complaints pending for preliminary enquiry itself. The affidavit, filed almost 4 months after the first order in this regard, shows that 1699 vigilance cases, of the year 2003 and onwards, are pending with the Vigilance Officer and 690 complaints, of the year 2009 and onwards, are pending for preliminary enquiry, a list of which is annexed as Annexure-B. There is no statement in the affidavit that this list is exhaustive and, in fact, instantly two learned counsel, appearing in similar cases, raised grievance that complaint of their petitioners, of the same period, does not find mention in the list. This Court is sure that, if the said list of pending complaints, and also a list of pending vigilance cases, are published in the newspapers, there will be several more such grievances. In its order, this Court had also directed the respondents to inform this Court about the stages of the pending vigilance cases, and as to in how many cases interim orders had been passed for stay of constructions and as to what follow up action was taken thereafter. This information the respondents have totally failed to provide, and, except the yearwise figure of vigilance cases pending since 2003, the affidavit is totally silent in this regard. It is a common knowledge that, as in the present case, in large number of cases some interim orders of restraint are passed by the authorities of the Corporation, with copies of the same to the local police station for enforcement. But this also is well known that, in almost all the cases there is no follow up from any level, resulting into almost all the orders becoming waste papers and being lost in the files. The net result is that, the Building Bye-laws, in-force since decades notwithstanding, there has been violation of its clauses to various extents in almost each and every building constructed within the geographical limits of the Corporation in the last more than thirty years or so and the Building Bye-laws of the Corporation and other laws occupying the field from before, have only become--in the words of a Division Bench of this Court--artifacts kept in the museum of the statute books or the archives of the Corporation, and an object of mockery for those who are responsible for its implementation and enforcement on the one hand, and for those also who are required to comply and follow them, on the other.

(2.) But this gives rise to another question. Is it not that the same state of affairs prevails in respect of hundreds of other Central Laws and State Laws? Is it not that in the last more than fifty years several other Central and State Laws, promulgated in the interest of the people of the Country, in furtherance of the Constitutional goal and in accordance with the Constitutional scheme, soon after their promulgation, have also become 'artifacts in the museum of the statute books'. To put it in plain words, under the Constitutional scheme, the Parliament at the centre, and the States Legislatures at the State level, have the primary duty to make provisions for welfare of the people of the Country in terms of the spirit underlying the Preamble of the Constitution of India and its provisions by framing of laws and promulgating them; whereas it is the duty of the Executive Wing of the State to implement and enforce them in accordance with their true letter and spirit and it is the duty of the Judiciary to uphold the laws and strike down their violations. It can be generally accepted that, by far, the Legislative Wing of the State at the Central level, as well as the States' level, have continuously made efforts to come up with laws in the larger interests of the people of the Country in accordance with the Constitutional scheme. This also cannot be disputed that, delays apart, the Judiciary of the Country also, by far, has continued to perform its duties to uphold the laws and strike down their violations. But the question is--has the Executive wing of the State made sincere and honest efforts to comply, implement and enforce the laws in their true letter and spirit, and uniformly, in the larger interests of the State and the people of the Country? On several occasions this Court has found responsible and high officials of the Government lacking in their duties in this regard. To its distress, this Court, many a times, has found that many senior officials of the Government were not even aware of the details of the laws they had the primary responsibility to enforce. This Court has repeatedly enquired and has found that majority of the Secretaries and District Magistrate rank officers of the Government had not even read the Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011, responsibility of implementation/enforcement of which squarely lies upon them under the said Policy, and, in fact, in performance of statutory duties even, they only depend on the notings and briefing of their clerks and office staff. General perception is, which is difficult to controvert, that, in the last fifty years, or so, there has been a steady decline in the rule of law and quality of governance in the Country in general and in Bihar in particular. It cannot be denied that, particularly in this State, over the years, a general tendency, which has steadily grown among the people, on the one hand, and among the law enforcement agencies and authorities of the Government, on the other, is to totally disregard and overlook the law and act and conduct their affairs and function as per their whims and fancies and in furtherance of personal interest/gains, oblique motives, and at times, directly against legal provisions. Over the years a tendency has gone on increasing among the authorities of the Government, empowered under law and made responsible for enforcement of law, to take casual approach and treat all violations of law and non-compliance of law as normal with 'chalta hai', may be, because they do not find themselves accountable for it, in any manner, before any forum or court. On the other hand, in many cases they deliberately act and violate the law, disobey the orders of their superiors and disregard and ignore the orders of the courts, only with mala fide intentions and with vested interests, knowing fully well that, worst come worst, the same will be set at naught, or rectified, but without any scratch to them at personal level. To cite an example, recently this Court had the occasion to notice (in C.W.J.C. No. 8319 of 2013) that in several cases poor villagers were coming before this Court with the grievance that their raiyati land were, being forcibly taken over for laying down roads under some scheme without any proceeding or steps for acquisition etc., whatsoever. The net result of all this is that several laws, which otherwise were meant for welfare of people and protection of their rights and for better governance have become dead letters and are forgotten. In the words of the Apex Court, this only may lead to anarchy and total collapse of administration.

(3.) Unfortunately, it is not being appreciated by the Governments that overall development and progress of a Country or a State depends on good governance, which in turn depends on efficient rule of law, which in turn depends on compliance, implementation and enforcement of taws in one and all cases uniformly which thus directly determines the extent of development and progress of a State. Here this Court is tempted to cite a fine example of enforcement of law in Gangtok on 13.4.2013 when a SUV of a Member of Parliament was intercepted in the no-entry zone of M.G. Marg of the town and was seized by a junior officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector and an F.I.R. was registered in this regard. This Court has doubts if this is also possible in other parts of the Country and particularly in this State. The fate of thousands and thousands of cases registered for violation of Code of Conduct Rules during parliamentary and assembly elections every time, speaks volumes about its ineffectiveness in the Country and the States. Two such laws, forgotten and made defunct, are: Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011; Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. There are several other laws falling in this class, a list of which may run into many pages.