HC takes suo motu cognizance of 10,000 open manholes across city
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The bench, comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Vrushali Joshi, expressed concern over the civic body's failure to act despite the serious threat to public safety, particularly during the monsoon.
"Such widespread neglect by the municipal authorities cannot be ignored. It directly endangers human lives," the court observed, appointing Shilpa Giratkar as amicus curiae to draft and submit the PIL.
The trigger was a July 30 report that detailed how thousands of sewer and drainage chamber lids across roads and footpaths are either missing or damaged.
Many are submerged under stagnant rainwater, making them invisible and turning regular commutes into high-risk journeys for pedestrians, motorists, and animals.
The issue cropped up during the hearing of a petition by a woman, Asha Bhagat, filed through Giratkar, whose son died after falling into an uncovered well between Automotive Square and Kamptee Road. The bench directed to club this case along with the suo motu PIL on manhole safety.
As per the report, despite sanctioning Rs15 crore — Rs1.5 crore per zone across 10 city zones — for installing 10,000 new covers, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation has not initiated a single repair. The tender process was completed in April, but no actual work followed.
Most of the older cast-iron lids were reportedly stolen for scrap. Even temporary cement covers were stripped of embedded metal rods. While the NMC proposed switching to SFRC (Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete) covers, the plan never left the paper stage.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"Tenders were floated and police complaints were filed, yet the chambers remain open," the report noted.
The absence of covers has also led to a spike in accident cases, with both people and animals falling into open manholes. The condition is especially dangerous on flooded roads and submerged footpaths. Several internal city roads routinely turn into mini-lakes during the monsoon, worsening the hazard, the report mentioned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Abu Salem must serve full prison term of 25 years, state tells HC
MUMBAI: The state government has informed the Bombay High Court that gangster Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari, one of the convicts in the March 1993 Mumbai serial bombings case, is not entitled to remission, a reduction in the length of time an inmate serves in jail. Abu Salem was arrested in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 18, 2002, and handed over to India on November 10, 2005. (PTI) In an affidavit filed on July 31, Aruna Mugutrao, superintendent of the Nashik central jail, stated that on July 14, the home department had passed an order stating that Salem was not entitled to remission and he should be released from jail only after serving his actual prison sentence of 25 years. Salem was arrested in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 18, 2002, and handed over to India on November 10, 2005. He was brought to India the next day. Salem was sentenced to life imprisonment by a local court in September 2017, for his role in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts. While deciding his appeal, the Supreme Court held that Salem would be entitled to be released on completing a prison term of 25 years – in terms of the sovereign assurance given by India to Portugal at the time of his extradition. The affidavit filed by Mugutrao stated that the home department had on July 14 passed an order, holding that Salem was otherwise liable to serve a prison term of 60 years, including remission. But in view of India's sovereign assurance to Portugal, he should be released from jail on completing actual imprisonment of 25 years, excluding remissions. Mugutrao clarified that the government decision, dated July 14, 2025, was passed in accordance with the International Agreement entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Portugal. The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by Salem on February 3 through advocate Farhana Shah, stating that he would be completing a 25-year prison term, including remissions, on March 31, 2025, and therefore entitled to be released on that date. He claimed he was entitled to remissions – both general as well as special. He claimed that considering the remissions, he had completed 25 years of imprisonment by including time spent as an undertrial prisoner, and the regular and special remissions he had earned over the years since his extradition to India from Portugal. His petition added that the Supreme Court had upheld his plea that he cannot be sentenced to more than 25 years in view of the solemn assurance given by the central government to their counterparts in Portugal.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay HC's larger Bench to settle if caste scrutiny committees have power to recall orders based on fraud
The Bombay High Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether caste scrutiny committees under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, can recall their own orders if caste validity certificates were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The referral was made by a Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Y.G. Khobragade at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on August 4, 2025. The court was hearing petitions filed by Santosh Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe, and Balaji Arunrao Kolhe, all residents of Jamb village in Nanded district, who challenged the cancellation of their caste validity certificates by the Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, headquartered at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The committee revoked their certificates on May 15, 2025, citing fraud and suppression of relevant facts. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Pratap V. Jadhavar, argued that scrutiny committees do not have the statutory authority to review or recall their decisions. They relied on judgments such as Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje v. State of Maharashtra and Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra, where the High Court had held that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes functus officio and that only the High Court under Article 226 can interfere. Additional Government pleaders S.P. Sonpawale and Saie S. Joshi argued that scrutiny committees must retain the power to recall certificates obtained by fraud, even if such power is not expressly provided in the 2000 Act. They cited judgments including Rajeshwar Baburao Bone, where the High Court and Supreme Court upheld a committee's decision to cancel a fraudulently obtained certificate. The State maintained that fraud vitiates every legal act and cannot be protected by procedural limitations. After hearing the argument, the Bench noted that different Benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue and observed that while excessive use of recall powers could destabilize settled rights, preventing scrutiny committees from correcting fraudulent outcomes would undermine the integrity of the validation process. It noted that scrutiny committees have quasi-judicial powers and are better positioned than writ courts to assess factual fraud in caste claims. 'But, that in itself cannot be the basis to hold that in no circumstances can the Scrutiny Committee exercise its inherent power of recalling its earlier order, which has been obtained on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It cannot be countenanced that orders upholding tribe claims and grant of validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications, fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, when noticed subsequently, cannot become the basis of reopening such cases,' the court order said. It is also relevant to note that the Scrutiny Committee is better equipped to examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation as it has some powers akin to those of a civil court, as compared to this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it added. The purity of the process, once found to be polluted has to be dealt with and therefore, we find that important questions arise for consideration that need to be authoritatively settled by a larger Bench of this Court, the Bench observed. 'Hence, we take recourse to Rule 9(A) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to formulate questions to be answered by a larger bench in the light of apparent conflict in the aforementioned views of various division benches of this Court.' The court has asked five questions: (i) Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act of 2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? (ii) Being a creature of the statute i.e. the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny Committee does not have power of substantive review due to absence of any such provision under the said statute, but does it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its inherent power to recall its own order on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ? (iii) If the Scrutiny Committee does have such limited power of recalling its order on the aforesaid grounds, what are the contours of the same and what safeguards must be applied so that a situation of rampant recalling of orders is avoided? (iv) Whether such a safeguard can include necessity of seeking leave of the High Court, in the light of the stipulation in Section 7(2) of the Act of 2000? (v) Whether the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), need to be revisited to the limited extent indicated above? The matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for constituting an appropriate larger bench to decide the issue.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
HC ‘unwillingly' grants 3-week extension to vacate top 18 floors lacking OC of Tardeo highrise
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday 'unwillingly' and on 'humanitarian considerations' granted three more weeks to occupants of the top 18 floors of a 34-storey highrise in Tardeo, south Mumbai — that did not have occupation certificates (OC) — from vacating their premises, at their own risk and face consequences in event of any untoward incident. The court clarified that occupants of floors 17 to 34 of the Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society tower will have to give an undertaking in that regard within two days, failing which Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) can take action and seal their flats at the cost of occupants failing to file an undertaking before the court. A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing pleas pertaining to the highrise occupied by 50 flat purchasers of a total of 62 flats. The society in its interim application had sought more time to vacate the flats from the 17th floor to the 34th. This comes after the Supreme Court on August 1 dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) by the society that challenged a Bombay HC order from last month that directed 'selfish' residents occupying the top 18 floors and without OCs to vacate their premises within two weeks, the period of which was to expire on August 2. The bench led by Justice Kulkarni had last month clarified that members residing from floors 17 to 34 'would be entitled to occupy the tenements, only after OC is granted.' The bench had also raised concerns over no fire NOC to the entire highrise. The court had pulled up occupants of the tower for 'brazen illegalities' for years and being 'least bothered' about their own and others' lives and had said it cannot permit perpetuating illegalities as the same was deprecated. The bench had said the said occupants were earlier told to make alternate arrangements. The SC bench led by Justice J B Pardiwalla on August 1 had appreciated 'courage and conviction exhibited by the High Court in taking stern steps against such unauthorised constructions'. The SC had asked petitioners to approach HC in case they wanted some more time to vacate the premises. Senior advocate Dinyar Madon for the society claimed that it was difficult for 27 families occupying 18 floors to find alternate accommodation on leave and licenses basis within a short span, therefore the time be extended. 'We were hopeful about SC… There are difficulties. 50 percent of these people belong to the Jain community and Paryushan and Ganesh Utsav will start soon. There are school going children. Getting alternate accommodation for 27 families in short time is difficult,' Madon argued. 'We never had an inclination from the beginning. Everyday we are perpetuating illegality (by continuing occupation) and it cannot happen. You are making a mercy plea that you may be permitted to occupy for more time in the teeth of the law,' the judges orally remarked. 'In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to accept prayer (seeking extension of 12 weeks). However, only on humanitarian consideration and quite unwillingly we grant further extension of 3 weeks (from August 6) to the occupants of 17 to 34 floors to vacate their respective tenements and undertaking to that effect be placed before this court within 2 days, ' the HC recorded in its order The court permitted concerned families to occupy the flats for three more weeks at their own risk and disposed of the society's application. The HC said that it will consider the issues related to floors 1 to 16 having part-OC without fire approval during the next hearing on August 13.
