ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard counsel for the P.R.D.A. and Additional Advocate General III in presence of the District Magistrate, Patna, the Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Patna, the Vice Chairman, P.R.D.A., the Managing Director, BISWAS BOARD and its Chief Engineer.

(2.) SO far as the removal of encroachments is concerned, we have always emphasised the fact that the encroachments which we wish to be removed in the first instance are the encroachments which are on the roads or its flanks, because they tend to obstruct the free flow of traffic on public street. Initially, the P.R.D.A. took up the job in right earnest, and some of the encroachments were removed. An atmosphere prevailed whereunder even the citizens realised the fact that removal of encroachment was in their own interest as also in the larger interest of the community. The result was that many house owners voluntarily removed the encroachments from the roads, and the task of the P.R.D.A. became easier. For reasons unknown there was sudden slump in the activities of the P.R.D.A. and for months together portions marked for removal remained as they were, and in many cases there was tampering with the markings, and in some cases the markings were obliterated. It appears that the P.R.D.A. slackened its pace, and things came virtually to a standstill. The ostensible excuse given is that on account of puja seasons coercive action was not taken. The real reason appears to be that the P.R.D.A. never intended to carry out the orders of this Court in their true spirit, which was further aggravated by the fact that there has been frequent change of Vice Chairman of the P.R.D.A. Lack of direction and initiative and proper appreciation of the purpose for which this Court has passed numerous orders appear to be the reason why good work which was being done has virtually come to a standstill. There is another aspect which we must highlight, namely, the partisan attitude of the authorities of the P.R.D.A. in removing encroachments. In the case of ordinary citizens, who did not claim to be V.I.Ps. and could not approach the authorities, the vigour and the rigour of the P.R.D.A. was noticeable. However, when it came to deal with more important people, who had perhaps violated the building bye -laws to a greater extent than some others, the authorities of the P.R.D.A. developed cold feet, and as an excuse shifted to some other corners of the city on the pretext that their activities were now confined to different parts of the city. We have been idle spectators to these things, and we thought at an appropriate moment we may caution the P.R.D.A. that the manner in which it has been carrying on, and the manner in which our orders are being executed leave much to be desired, and we cannot help expressing our anguish in view of the manner in which the P.R.D.A. has acted. There may, perhaps, be a design to implement the orders of the Court in such a manner as to ¢ make the orders look ridiculous, and denigrade the judiciary by making it appear that judicial orders favoured those who are prosperous but ruthlessly dealt with those who were not. To remove this impression from the minds of the people, we reiterate today that law must fall on all with equal weight and force, and it does not matter that a person, who is a wrong doer is highly placed, either officially or otherwise. It he is a wrong doer, he must be treated in the same manner as other wrong doers. The common complaint is that high officials, who have encroached the public roads have not been touched, whereas others who have even slightly deviated have been dealt with ruthlessly. We warn the P.R.D.A. that this attitude on its part gives a wrong impression to the people. The P.R.D.A. is functioning under directions issued by us from time to time and, therefore, there can be no arbitrariness or selectiveness in implementation of the orders. We, therefore, direct the P.R.D.A. that it shall not bother about the importance of the person who has encroached upon public road, and that the P.R.D.A. shall deal with him in the same manner as any other person, who has encroached upon the road or its flanks.

(3.) THE other difficulty which we have faced is about the manner of implementation of our orders. After removing the encroachments for a few days in a particular locality, the P.R.D.A. shifts its venue of action to some other locality, in many cases, because it comes across V.I.P. encroachments and are prevented from proceeding further. In most cases the encroachers are high ranking Government officials. We, therefore, approve of the schedule proposed by the P.R.D.A. itself, whereunder dates have been fixed within which encroachment drive will be carried out in the localities mentioned in the schedule. We keep on record a copy of the time schedule dated 26 -11 -1996 which lays down the programme for the period 2 -12 -1996 to 16 -12 -1996 and 17 -12 -1996 to 31 -12 -1996. The P.R.D.A. will concentrate on the localities mentioned in the programme and complete the work within the same period. After the work has been completed in these localities, the P.R.D.A. will shift its venue of action to other localities for which the programme should be announced on or before 15th December, 1996. We wish to make it clear that apart from those structures in respect of which there is any order of court, which amounts to an order of restraint all other encroachments on roads and its flanks must be removed.