Full Text
#9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For the Respondents : Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Standing counsel with Mr. Sanjeev George, Adv. for NDMC.
Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Adv. for R- 2 & 4.
Mr.Sumeeti Pushkarna, Adv. for DJB.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by the Petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- “A Direct the respondents to take strict action against the concerned officials of respondents as they are fail to perform their duty and negligence behaviour towards society and make others life in danger and lifelong bad impact on families. B Directing the respondents to provide the 2018:DHC:4148-DB smooth and potholes free road to the passerby and localities of the Rani Jhansi Road Delhi; C Direct the respondent to give monetary compensation to the petitioner which petitioner spent upon the treatment and travelling of his wife and both the babies. D Direct the petitioner to pay the cost of this petition.
(Paragraph 19) occurred into the petitioners both the babies, respondent will pay the treatment and travelling expenses to the plaintiff and in case nothing happened with babies by the grace of god petitioner will not ask for single rupees.
2. This court vide order dated 16th October, 2017, observed as follows:-
3. A plain reading of the above order reflects that insofar as the prayers
(C) and (E) of the petition are concerned, the petitioner has sought permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file a civil suit to recover due compensation.
4. In view of the forgoing, the writ petition has been posted for determination only in relation to prayer clauses (A), (B), (D) and (F).
5. Insofar as, the prayer clause (A) is concerned, the petitioner has expressed helplessness in providing cogent material predicated on which, this court can arrive at a conclusion that the concerned officials of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (‘NDMC’) failed to perform their duty, as required by law and were negligent in the discharge of their duties thereby, endangering lives of others.
6. Needless to state that, in the absence of evidence, the court cannot presume the negligence of a public servant and visit him with the consequences thereof.
7. In this view of the matter, the present prayer clause cannot be granted in the present writ petition in the absence of cogent material on record, which would inevitably lead to but one conclusion, that of the negligence of public officials in the discharge of the statutory duties.
8. Insofar as, prayer clause (B) is concerned, it is the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation to ensure that, public roads are constructed and maintained in a manner so as to obviate the occurrence of any untoward incidents which may cause injury to the public at large. In that view of the matter, the NDMC is directed to ensure that, roads not only in the subject area, but in all parts of the city within their jurisdiction are kept in a smooth and safe condition, free of potholes, so as to eliminate the possibility of causing accidents and injury to the road users, who are taxed in this behalf.
9. Insofar as, the prayer clause (D) is concerned, the civil court before whom the petitioner has been granted liberty to institute appropriate proceedings, is directed to consider grant of costs of the proceedings to the petitioner, at the appropriate stage.
10. Insofar as, the prayer clause (F) is concerned, the same is allowed directing the statutory authorities to discharge their duties with promptitude and concern for the citizens of the country.
11. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 12, 2018 ak