NEW DELHI: The Gauhati High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the Assam government’s perceived lack of seriousness in addressing the chronic waterlogging issue in the state capital.
Consequently, the court has imposed fines of Rs 1,000 each on four departments for failing to respond to repeated notices.
The (Case No: PIL/14/2024) filed by the North East Eco Development Society as a public interest litigation, was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kardak Ete.
During the hearing, the bench noted the absence of responses from the state departments, despite several deadlines over the past few months.
Case Insights
The order stated, “In the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the aforesaid departments to file their response to the writ petition, subject to the condition that each department shall pay a cost of Rs 1,000 only to the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority.” The next hearing is scheduled for July 19, and the imposed fines must be deposited by that date. The court highlighted the lack of responses from key Assam government officials, including the Additional Chief Secretary of the Forest & Environment Department, Principal Secretary of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chief Executive Officer of the Assam State Disaster Management Authority, and the Divisional Forest Officer of the Kamrup Division.
During the previous hearing on June 3, the petitioner raised concerns about the persistent waterlogging in Guwahati. The court’s order mentioned, “It appears that the aforesaid departments are not serious in solving the problem of waterlogging in Guwahati city, as despite specific time granted to them, no response has been filed till date.”
Court’s
Observation
The high court also noted earlier concerns raised by the petitioner regarding encroachments and hill cutting, which have led to artificial floods and landslides. “It is contended that on account of illegal cutting of hills and unabated encroachments, Guwahati city is virtually sitting on a time bomb in case of incessant rainfall for a few days,” the court had stated on April 20. The PIL was registered on February 23, and hearings began five days later.