- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State Of U.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
Pursuant to an earlier order dated 10 May 1991, the matter was taken up on 11 July 1991. The proceeding—already pending for almost nine years—concerns preparation of land records, identification of forest land, and initiation of final action under the Forest Act. Although numerous directions had been issued over the years, the Court noted that “no substantial progress has yet been made.” Two Commissioners were overseeing the work on site, but one of them, Mr. R. P. Pandey, continued to reside in Allahabad and found it inconvenient to relocate. A report from the Executive Chairman of the U.P. State Legal Aid and Advice Board was also placed before the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Grievance Raised by Other Participants
- Alleged that several directions contained in the order of 10 May 1991 had not been complied with, causing further delay.
State of Uttar Pradesh
- Through senior advocate Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, assured the Court that all outstanding directions would be complied with promptly.
- Requested reduction of the ordered deposit from Rs 20 lakhs to Rs 5 lakhs, explaining that additional funds could be requisitioned without delay if needed.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court expressed concern that despite nine years of litigation and repeated orders, substantive progress remained elusive. Concluding that on-site supervision was “almost indispensable,” it found Commissioner Pandey’s refusal to relocate incompatible with the task at hand. Accordingly, it:
- Replaced Mr. R. P. Pandey with Shri Prem Singh, a retired District Judge, and asked the Commission’s Secretary to report on appropriate compensation for Mr. Pandey’s past work.
- Accepted the State’s assurance regarding funding and reduced the required deposit from Rs 20 lakhs to Rs 5 lakhs, to be placed in an imprest account within two weeks.
- Directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to file, within three weeks, an affidavit confirming compliance with all directions as modified.
- Suggested revival of an earlier monitoring committee set up by the Chief Secretary to ensure coordinated activity.
- Requested Mr. Justice Loomba, Executive Chairman of the U.P. State Legal Aid and Advice Board, to continue on-site supervision and to submit monthly reports.
The matter was scheduled to be listed again five weeks later for further review.
Holding and Implications
INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED
The Court substituted one Commissioner, reduced the financial deposit requirement, mandated an affidavit of compliance, revived administrative monitoring mechanisms, and set the case for further review in five weeks. The order primarily expedites implementation of prior directives and does not establish a new legal precedent.
Order
1. Pursuant to our order of May 10, 1991, this matter was called on July 11, 1991, when parties and both the Commissioners were heard. The report from the Executive Chairman of the U.P State Legal Aid and Advice Board has been received and looked into.
2. The proceeding has been pending in this Court for almost nine years. In spite of all possible orders and directions made from time to time no substantial progress has yet been made. The land records have got to be prepared; the forest land has to be identified and final action under the Forest Act has to be taken. The exercise involved in this process is undoubtedly massive but that by itself would not justify a protracted proceeding.
3. When we made our order in May 1991, we had a feeling that before the rains started there would be substantial progress. The rainy season has come though rains are belated. In these two months, however, there has been no progress.
4. Mr R.P Pandey, one of the Commissioners has been staying at Allahabad and he does not find it convenient to shift to the site. As we indicated earlier, the matter has reached a stage where presence of all the officers and the Commissioners at the site has become almost indispensable. Mr Pandey has informed the Court that he would find it difficult to shift to the site. We do not think much of his services can be utilised if he is allowed to stay at Allahabad. It would, therefore, be necessary to substitute him by appointing some other judicial officer as Commissioner. Mr Pandey had done good work during the period he was supervising the process. We would suggest to the Secretary to the Commission appointed by us to make a report to us as to in what way Mr Pandey can be compensated for the work done. In place of Mr R.P Pandey we direct Shri Prem Singh, retired District Judge of the State to be appointed as one of the Commissioners. The Registry shall take steps to intimate him of the assignment at his Varanasi address.
5. At the hearing of the matter, on July 11 grievance was made that several directions out of the order of May 10, 1991 had not been complied with. Mr Yogeshwar Prasad, senior advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh assured us in Court that immediate steps would be taken to comply with all the directions excepting the requirement of depositing of Rs 20 lakhs with the Secretary of the Commission. We have considered his stand in regard to the direction for depositing Rs 20 lakhs and are prepared to modify the amount of Rs 20 lakhs to Rs 5 lakhs in view of the assurance that more of funds can come on requisition without loss of time. That amount may be kept in deposit with the Secretary in the imprest account within two weeks hence. The State of Uttar Pradesh shall file an affidavit that all the directions made on May 10 as modified now have been complied with within three weeks from today in the Registry of this Court.
6. Some time back, the Chief Secretary had set up a small committee at Lucknow for monitoring the work. We suggest to the Chief Secretary that he may revive the committee which on account of the intervening disturbances of law and order followed by the general elections had perhaps been abandoned so that coordinated activity may be possible.
7. We request Mr Justice Loomba, Executive Chairman of U.P State Legal Aid and Advice Board to continue to supervise the work which he has been doing already so that the monitoring at the spot can appropriately be cross-checked. He is requested to send monthly reports to the Court. The matter may be placed again five weeks hence.
Alert