Read Time: 05 minutes
The High Court directed construction of the temporary bridges after taking note of the violation of the fundamental rights of the people of villages. The court also noted that “In spite of repeated requests made by this Court, the authorities appear to have not looked into the matter so far”.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice G.A Sanap, has directed the Central Ministry of Health, Tribal Affairs, and Directorate of Health Services Mumbai to take necessary steps for constructing a temporary bridge between Vengnur and Regadi, at the earliest.
The High Court in its order stated that seven-speed boats are provided for the facility for commuting between the isolated villages and the mainland of District Gadchiroli, however, the same was not enough and the High Court directed the respondent to file in its reply the proposal of constructing 8 bridges but the respondent did not take any steps to submit the plan to the state government. Further, the respondent in its reply did not state anything about providing 24x7 electricity, and medical facilities along with sufficient education facilities. The court, therefore, directed the authorities in charge at the ground level to take urgent steps in the matter
The Amicus Curiae submitted before the court that the construction of 8 bridges would be a long-term solution and there would not be any immediate relief for the people of the villages therefore the court directed the respondent to build a temporary bridge between Vengnur and Regadi at the earliest.
The matter pertains to a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation which was taken up by the court. The court had taken note of the fundamental rights of tribals residing in remote and isolated villages such as Vengnur, Surgaon, Adangepalli, and Padkotola following within Vengnur District Gadchiroli.
The concerned villages in the present PIL are surrounded by dense forest and during the rainy season, the water of Dina Dam Kannamwar Reservoir surrounds the villages from all sides.
The court noted that the respective villages are cut off from the entire world for five months in a year, and the people of the villages have to use a boat which itself is risky and dangerous.
The court in its earlier order had noted that
“Denial of the aforestated facilities to the villagers for almost half of the year leads to serious violation of fundamental rights of the villagers who are all tribal. We, therefore, take cognizance of this petition and direct that an experienced advocate be appointed to assist the Court.”
Case Title: Court on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra, Department of TribalSocial Welfare and others
Please Login or Register
