The Bombay High Court refrained from contempt proceedings against Maharashtra civic bodies for non-compliance with road maintenance orders. While acknowledging some efforts, the court emphasized citizens’ rights to safe roads. It revived a 2013 public interest litigation for ongoing monitoring and directed authorities to submit a compliance report by December 3.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings against several civic bodies in Maharashtra for allegedly failing to comply with its 2018 orders regarding the poor condition of roads and potholes. The court acknowledged that the civic bodies had made bona fide efforts and achieved substantial compliance with the orders, although some aspects of the directives remain unfulfilled.
A division bench consisting of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar made this decision while reviving a 2013 public interest litigation (PIL) taken up suo motu (on its own) by the High Court, as the matter is directly related to public welfare.
Citizens’ Fundamental Right to Safe Roads
The court emphasized that citizens have a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to have streets and footways in reasonably good condition. This right is closely tied to the protection of life and personal liberty, as poor road conditions pose significant risks to public safety. Civic authorities, the court said, are obligated to maintain roads in a condition that allows citizens to use them effectively.
Background of the Case
The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ruju Thakker, who sought contempt action against several municipal corporations, including those of Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Thane, and Mira Bhayandar. The petition alleged non-compliance with the High Court’s 2018 orders, which had directed these civic bodies to complete critical road maintenance tasks.
Read Also: “Is this an excuse”, Bombay High Court Slams BMC For Poor Road Conditions
These directives included:
- Ensuring the maintenance of roads
- Displaying information about digging work
- Establishing a grievance redressal mechanism
- Improving manhole safety
- Ensuring quality assurance in road contracts
Despite noting some compliance, the petition claimed that these civic bodies had failed to fully meet the requirements of the 2018 court orders, prompting the plea for contempt proceedings.
Court Observes Substantial Compliance
While acknowledging that civic bodies had not met the court’s orders in their entirety, the bench noted that there had been genuine efforts toward compliance. “We are of the considered opinion that the respondents (civic bodies) have established that they have made bona fide efforts to comply with the directions and have further demonstrated substantial compliance,” the court observed.
The court ruled that, under these circumstances, the civic bodies could not be held in contempt for willful disobedience of its 2018 orders.
Revival of 2013 PIL for Continuous Supervision
Although the court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, it revived the 2013 PIL taken up suo motu by the Bombay High Court. This PIL, centered around the poor condition of roads and public welfare, will continue to serve as a tool for ensuring that civic bodies maintain road infrastructure in accordance with legal standards.
The Bench said,
“Taking into consideration public welfare and the importance of the directions in light of recognition of fundamental rights under Article 21, the PIL taken up suo motu in 2013 stands revived,”
Orders for Full Compliance and Ongoing Monitoring
The court directed all involved civic bodies to take immediate corrective actions to ensure full compliance with its previous orders. The authorities are required to submit a detailed compliance report by December 3. The court highlighted that despite substantial efforts, the poor condition of some roads, the lack of an operational grievance redressal mechanism, and incomplete pothole repairs indicated that the work remains unfinished.
Continuous judicial supervision, the court added, is essential in cases where citizens’ welfare is at stake. The bench emphasized that local authorities have a continuous duty to maintain streets and footpaths in good condition, ensuring that potholes are filled scientifically. “This duty is ongoing and cannot be neglected without legal consequence,” the court stressed, reinforcing the need for ongoing vigilance and judicial oversight.
The High Court concluded by stating that a “continuous mandamus” is necessary to ensure that government and local authorities adhere to their responsibilities related to road infrastructure maintenance, as mandated by the Municipal Corporations Act.