IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No. 8254 of 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Human Rights Association through its Honorary
Secretary, namely, S.A. Najmi ……………………………….. Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ……………………………… Respondents.
————————————————————————————–
Appearance:
For the petitioner : Mr Syed Alamdar Hussain,Sr.Advocate
Miss Minu Kumari, Advocate.
For the respondent nos. 1 & 11: Mr. Bhaktishwar Jha, CGC.
For the respondent no. 15: Mr. Ajat Shatru, Advocate.
For the respondent nos. 16-18: Mr. Devendra Kr. Sinha,
Senior Advocate.
For the respondent no. 19: Mr. Madhav Roy with
Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocates.
For the respondent no. 20: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha,
Senior Advocate and
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.
————————————————————————————-
CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
(Per: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
15. 16.11.2010. This petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in Public Interest has been filed by
2
one International Human Rights Association, a Non-
Government Organization.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the
Central Government has taken up a move to eradicate
manual scavenging. Under the said move the State
Governments are extended financial aid to construct
toilets for urban poor and in rural areas and to convert
the existing dry toilets to water-closets. For the purpose,
adequate funds have been placed at the disposal of the
State of Bihar. In turn, the State Government has
placed the funds at the disposal of the local authorities
for that purpose. It is further stated that under the said
scheme the State Government has sanctioned
construction of a number of new toilets and conversion
of the existing toilets into water-closets under the
District Panchayats.
This petition is related to the areas under
Danapur, Fulwarisarif, Maner and Khagaul Nagar
Parishads in Patna District. It is the complaint of the
petitioner that without reference to the expense the
contract has been awarded to one Samadhan Sewa
Samiti, the respondent no. 20, (hereinafter referred to as
3
`the Samiti’). The contract was awarded in the year
2007. The construction / conversion work had to be
completed within six months. Nevertheless, after more
than three years not even 25% of the work is completed.
What is completed is not according to the specifications
and up to the standard. Nevertheless, the Samiti has
been paid the money in advance. Thus, the concerned
Nagar Parishads in connivance with the Samiti have
misappropriated the funds allocated for the purpose.
The petition is contested by the concerned
Nagar Parishads. According to each Nagar Parishad,
the construction or conversion of toilets has been
satisfactorily performed by the Samiti. It is, however,
admitted that the work has not been completed as
alleged. It is denied that the funds allotted were
misappropriated or advance had been paid to the Samiti
as alleged.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr Y.V. Giri has
appeared for the Samiti. He has contested the petition.
He has submitted that the petition is filed at the behest
of one Sulabh International, a renowned institution
carrying out sanitation works. The Sulabh International
4
failed to win the contract which has enraged the said
Sulabh International. The present petition in public
interest is, therefore, not maintainable. He has referred
to various figures placed on the record to submit that
the substantial part of the work has been completed
satisfactorily and that the remaining work is in progress.
He has denied that the funds allotted for the purpose or
any part of it has been misappropriated. He has
submitted that only 25% of the funds have been paid to
the Samiti. Mr. Giri has also submitted that the work
performed by the Samiti has been supervised by the
concerned Nagar Parishad. The Nagar Parishad has
certified the satisfactory completion of the work. The
State Government has also set up its own machinery to
carry out inspection work and has opined that the work
has been satisfactorily performed. No further enquiry
is, therefore, necessitated.
It is true that various figures have been placed
on the record. Each Nagar Parishad and the State
Government have submitted that the work has been
satisfactorily performed by the Samiti. However, it is
not in dispute that the work, which was required to be
5
completed within six months, has not been completed
today after more than three years. Ordinarily, we would
rest satisfied with the satisfaction recorded by the State
Government or the local authorities. However, the writ
petitioner has filed an additional affidavit and placed on
the record a number of photographs which prompt us to
order an enquiry in the matter. We, therefore, propose
to form four committees to make physical verification
of the number and the quality of toilets constructed by
the Samiti at various locations (placed on the record of
the writ petition from page 449 to 469). Each committee
will cover the area of one of the concerned Nagar
Parishads, namely, Danapur Nagar Parishad,
Fulwarisarif Nagar Parishad, Maner Nagar Parishad and
Khagaul Nagar Parishad. Each committee will comprise
two representatives of the writ petitioner, one
representative of the concerned Nagar Parishad, one
representative of the Central Government, one
representative of the State Government and one
representative of the Samiti. With the consent of the
learned Advocates, we constitute the committees as
under:
6
Danapur-
(1) Mr. S. Hussain Raza Kazmi, Advocate
representing the petitioner.
(2) Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate representing
the petitioner.
(3) Mr. Navendu Kumar, Advocate
representing the Parishad.
(4) Mr. Arun Kumar, Regional Chief HUDCO,
Patna, representing the Central
Government.
(5) Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
representing the State.
(6) Sri Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
representing the Samiti.
Fulwarisarif-
(1) Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate representing
the petitioner.
(2) Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate representing the
petitioner.
(3) Mr. Sunil Kumar, Ward Member Nagar
Parishad, Khagaul representing the
Parishad.
7
(4) Mr. Arun Kumar, Regional Chief HUDCO,
Patna, representing the Central Government.
(5) Mr. Syed Imran Gani, Advocate
representing the State.
(6) Sri Choudhary Shyam Nandan, Advocate
representing the Samiti.
Maner-
(1) Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate
representing the petitioner.
(2) Sri Nafisuzzoha, Advocate representing the
petitioner.
(3) Sri Navin Kumar, Advocate representing
the Parishad
(4) Mr. Arun Kumar, Regional Chief HUDCO,
Patna, representing the Central
Government.
(5) Sri Girija Shankar Prasad, Advocate
representing the State.
(6) Sri Ganesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
representing the Samiti.
Khagaul-
(1) Sri Bhupendra Kumar, Advocate
8representing the petitioner.
(2) Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate representing
the petitioner.
(3) Sri Ambika Prasad, Sanitary Inspector,
representing the Parishad.
(4) Mr. Arun Kumar, Regional Chief HUDCO,
Patna, representing the Central
Government.
(5) Dr. Samsir Ansari, representing the State.
(6) Sri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate representing
the Samiti.
The petitioner will within five days from today
deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) in the
registry of this Court by way of costs. The Registry
will disburse a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Two thousand five
hundred) to each of the committees to meet initial
expenses. Further order for the costs and the
remuneration to the members of the above committee
will be made hereafter.
It is further directed that Sri Arun Kumar,
Regional Chief, HUDCO, Patna will be the Chairman
of each committee. He will hold the amount and
9
account for the expenses incurred by each committee.
He will coordinate the timings. Each member of the
committee will cooperate with the Chairman Sri Arun
Kumar. Each committee will submit its report within
three months from today.
Stand over to 21st February 2011 for further
orders.
Copy of this order be furnished to each
Advocate representing the parties.
( R.M. Doshit, C.J. )
Dilip ( Jyoti Saran, J. )