Not function of court to decide water reservoir site, PCMC must decide immediately: Bombay HC

MUMBAI: In a battle over the location of a much-needed overhead

water reservoir in Pimpri-Chinchwad

, the

Bombay high court

refused to be drawn into the controversy.

"It is not the function of the court to decide on which plot the reservoir is to be constructed. The corporation has to decide on the plot which is adequate and suitable from the engineering point of view," said a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and justice V G Bisht in its May 5 order.

The HC directed the

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

(PCMC) to immediately decide on the question of identification of a suitable plot.

“We express no opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties and leave it to the Corporation to decide the plot on which reservoir is to be constructed based on technical reports and not by what the rival groups say,’’.

The suitable plot must be between the two plots for its construction, “thereafter, all formalities be complied with including the beginning of construction so that within two years of issuance of the work order, construction of the reservoir is complete and people are supplied with adequate quantity of waters,’’ directed the HC.

The order was passed on public interest litigation (PIL) filed last year by Rajendra Landge whose lawyer SR Ronghe sought directions to ensure the construction of the water tank at a plot.

For the PCMC senior counsel, Atul Damle with counsel Deepak More said the corporation had passed a resolution to construct the water reservoir on one of the two plots where the soil was tested. It was found suitable and tenders were issued. Work order was issued to the successful bidder. But when he started excavation of land, certain people of the locality opposed and demanded that it be constructed on the other plot which the HC was told is roughly 200 metres away. As a consequence, the work stopped and the PIL was filed to ensure work continues.

Two groups of local people filed interventions, one supporting the construction at an alternate spot, the other opposing it. The HC said it was not court’s function to choose the plot for the corporation, as it has to be decided from an engineering point of view and disposed of the PIL and as a consequence, the intervention applications.