GH MOHD BEIGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this court in writ jurisdiction with petition allegation that in the year 1995 Urban Engineering Environment Department through City Drainage Division Srinagar carried out the drainage programme via Qadim Masjid, Qureshi Mohalla lane Lal Bazar Srinagar, adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The digging and excavation of soil on spot was done negligently, without taking proper precautions. It exposed petitioners house risk and damage. The house was actually damaged by the erosion of the trench walls and cracks developed in his house. Petitioner and his family had to flee for their lives and left the house. It was unsafe and dangerous to live in the house. The department caused the damage to the house consequent or excavation, erosion and taking of the soil and on his presentation the department took notice and Asstt. Engineer was deputed. On verification he reported that the damage is cause as alleged and recommended an amount of Rs. 45, 000/ - for payment to petitioner to redress and address his grievance. The matter went up and down in the administrative ladder in U.E.E. Deptt. without any relief to the petitioner, though the damage caused to the petitioners house is recommended to be recovered from the Contractor (Annexure C to D1). On these allegations the petitioner prayed for Mandamus for release of Rs. 1, 17, 000/ - on different counts.

(2.) THE respondent have yet to file reply. The case has been admitted to hearing on 10.6.2002. Despite opportunities the reply is not filed even at post admission stage. In CMP 913/2001, the court passed the following direction: - -

(3.) IN the report regarding compliance of order dated 10.6.2002 of the court in CMP No. 913/2001 in the main writ, it is stated that the matter has been considered. The submission of report by the Asstt. Executive Engineer. Left River Drainage Sub Div. Srinagar is acknowledged. It is stated that the maximum expenditure involved to restore the damage would be in the order of Rs. 35, 000/ - and the respondents are prepared to redress the grievance of petitioner to this extent. Petitioner had filed a civil suit which was withdrawn later on. The respondents have stated that the liability, if any, is not of the department, but of the contractor, carrying of the work on spot is not refuted. It is interesting to note that the so called compliance report and the order passed by the Chief Engineer in the matter are not even on affidavit. The reply to main matter is not even filed.