LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

SUDIP MAZUMDAR vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 15 July, 1996

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
W.P.(Crl.) No.-001420-001420 - 1982Official PDFBench Katikithala Ramaswamy, Gopal Ballav Pattanaik
PETITIONER:
SUDIP MAZUMDAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (6) 651 1996 SCALE (5)474
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 1996
Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, (Rajeev Dhavan)
Sr. Ad. for Intervenors, Ranjit Kumar, A.Subba Rao, Anil
Katiyar, Uma Nath Singh, E.C.Vidya Sagar, Ms. A. Subhashini,
L.R.Singh, Pramod Kumar and Ms. Vimla Sinha, Advs. with them
for the appearing parties.
O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, (Rajeev Dhavan) Sr. Ad. for Intervenors, Ranjit Kumar, A.Subba Rao, Anil Katiyar, Uma Nath Singh, E.C.Vidya Sagar, Ms. A. Subhashini, L.R.Singh, Pramod Kumar and Ms. Vimla Sinha, Advs. with them for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered. Sudip Mazumdar V. State of Madhya Pradesh

Application for intervention is allowed.

The departed soul of Shri Govind Mukhoty would feel satisfied for the result as he had done yeomen’s service to protect the precious lives of the tribals who used to go to collect firewood etc. but became victims of firing in the range. He devoted his life and was an ardent champion of human rights of underprivileged and one of the cases which he had left over unfinished, is this case which we are now disposing or partly. In this case, or, account of test firing practices being organised at a test firing range near Itarasi in Madhya Pradesh, several of the tribals are becoming victims of the firing and some of them succumb to the injuries and several sustain grievous injuries. That resulted in filing this writ petition. This Court, by order dated March 13, 1994 by a Constitution Bench, had accepted the recommendations made by High-level Committee of the Government constituted pursuant to an order passed by this Court. The recommendations, as accepted by this Court, are as under:

"(i) The substitute plans of

erecting barbed wire fencing around

the four target areas have been

worked out and is as per sketch

P.,Q. and Q1.

(ii) DSC personnel will be

deplayed to patrol the target areas

to prevent unauthorised entry by

metal pickets into the target area

and to protect the barbed wire.

(iii) Watch towers will be

constructed around the fencing to

provide effective field of

observations to the DSC guards to

carry out duties at (b) above.

(iv) Approach roads to the

target areas will be constructed

for easy access.

(v) Additional transport will

be provided to CPE Itarsi to ferry

DSC troops to and fro target areas

and to convey food and other

essential requirements to them

while on duty."

This Court gave the direction as

under:

"We direct the Government to accord

sanction in terms of its own prayer

in Criminal Misc. Petition No.

1360/94 immediately so as to allow

the tender process to be completed

and the work to commence within 3

months from today. The actual

physical execution of the work for

which 24 months’ time is indicated

in the aforesaid Note, shall be

reduced to and completed in a

period of 18 months."

For compliance thereof, the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately time was extended by order dated January 12, 1996 to submit full compliance report. Today, an affidavit has been filed by Brigadier Kuppuswami Ramani who is in-charge of Central Proof Establishment, Itarasi. As per the report, full compliance of the directions issued by this Court has been made. We accept the report and close the matter on implementation part.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of partly. The proceedings in this writ petition are accordingly closed. On maintainability, reference is awaiting the decision of the Constitution Bench.