Bombay High Court :- Shobha Vikas Bhoir vs. State of Maharashtra, WP No. 5256 of 2021People’s fundamental rights are being violated by the state government.

Pained to record that the Court doors were knocked after 75 years of independence to seek direction for the provision of regular water supply, the Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., stated that

By giving water to its citizens only twice a month, and for only two hours, the state government is not only depriving them of their fundamental right, but also attracting criticism and degrading its image, especially after 75 years of independence.

In the instant case, petitioners who were only receiving two hours of water twice a month asked for a regular supply of water.

They claimed that they learned from reliable sources that officers of respondent 7 were illegally supplying water to political leaders, particularly councillors, tanker lobbies, industries, sizing companies/industries, warehousing complexes, and construction sites, earning lakhs of rupees for illegal water supply. Furthermore, it was claimed that respondent 7 authorities were uninterested in removing the unlawful water tapping/connection and valves installed on the main pipeline.

Respondent 7’s Deputy Engineer informed the Court that they were attempting to supply water to the petitioners on a regular basis but were unable to do so owing to a variety of technical reasons.

Decision
The High Court stated that it is the petitioners’ fundamental right to receive regular water supply as sanctioned by the authorities, and that providing them with water just twice a month for two hours amounted to a blatant violation of their fundamental right.

As a result, the Managing Director of respondent 7 company, as well as Jai Jeet Singh, Commissioner of Police, were ordered to appear before the Court to inform the Court of the steps to be taken to resolve the problem, as well as the steps proposed to be taken to disconnect the illegal 300-400 water connections.

On September 9th, the Advocate General referred to the affidavit filed by respondent 7, in which two types of remedies to meet the increased demand for water owing to population growth in village Khambe were proposed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close