# Centres And for providing Better Treatment to Corona Positive v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 337
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-07
- **Case number:** PIL No. 574 of 2020
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/centres-and-for-providing-better-treatment-to-corona-positive-v-state-of-u-p-45227
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Dhiraj Singh, Sri Hari Nath
Tripathi,
Purnendu
Kumar
Singh,
Sri
Satyavrat Sahai, Sri Sunil Dutt Kautilya

Civil Law - U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - U.P. Municipal
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Corporation Act, 1959 - Encroachment on
public land - both the Acts have to be read
in harmony with each other - powers of
the development authorities u/ss 26-A to
Section 26-D of the 1973, Act are not in
any way in derogation to the powers of
the Municipal Corporations u/ss 295 and
296 of the 1959, Act and vice versa - both
the public authorities are to act in
coordination and come to the aid of each
other
-
to
remove
unauthorized
encroachers from public land and public
places in the larger public interest (Para
13, 21)

## Text

10 All. In-Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine Centres And for providing Better Treatment to
 Corona Positive Vs. State of U.P.
337

41. The subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority with regard to the action
of preventive detention has to be taken
keeping in mind the danger to liberties of the
people and if the actions or the activities of
the person have serious repercussions not
merely on "law and order" but on "public
order", the satisfaction so recorded cannot be
lightly interfered by the Court of Law unless
it is arbitrary or unreasonable.

42. In the case at hand, the grounds of
detention elaborately narrate the facts leading
to the order of detention and the grounds are
precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant for
recording subjective satisfaction and thus, it
cannot be said that the detaining authority has
not applied its judicious mind in coming to
the conclusion that the activities of the
petitioner are prejudicial in nature to the
maintenance of "public order".

43. It may not be out of context to
remind that the Court in exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction does not normally
interfere with the subjective satisfaction
recorded by the detaining authority except in
exceptional circumstances inasmuch as the
Court is not empowered to substitute its own
opinion for that of the detaining authority. No
exceptional
circumstances
have
been
established to permit interference with the
subjective satisfaction recorded by the
District Magistrate in passing the order of
preventive detention of the petitioner.

44. Accordingly, we do not find any
scope for exercising our discretionary power
in the matter at hand so as to disturb the
impugned order of preventive detention.
However, as primarily the satisfaction has
been recorded on apprehension that the
activities of the petitioner would affect the
"public order", we leave it open for the
petitioner to apply for the revocation of the
order of preventive detention or for his
temporary release in accordance with the
provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Act
which may be considered expeditiously
subject to conditions as permitted in law.

45. No other point was raised and
argued before us.

46. The writ petition, accordingly, is
devoid of merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A337
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

PIL No. 574 of 2020
with
PIL No. 1289 of 2019

In-Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine
Centres
And
for
providing
Better
Treatment to Corona Positive ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gaurav Kumar Gaur, Sri Aditya Singh
Parihar, Sri Amitanshu Gour, Sri Jitendra
Kumar, Sri Katyayini, Sri Rahul Sahai, Sri
Rishu Mishra, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, Sri
Satyaveer Singh, Sri Shailendra Garg,
Sunita Sharma, Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal,
Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami, Sri Arvind Kumar
Goswami

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Dhiraj Singh, Sri Hari Nath
Tripathi,
Purnendu
Kumar
Singh,
Sri
Satyavrat Sahai, Sri Sunil Dutt Kautilya

Civil Law - U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - U.P. Municipal
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Corporation Act, 1959 - Encroachment on
public land - both the Acts have to be read
in harmony with each other - powers of
the development authorities u/ss 26-A to
Section 26-D of the 1973, Act are not in
any way in derogation to the powers of
the Municipal Corporations u/ss 295 and
296 of the 1959, Act and vice versa - both
the public authorities are to act in
coordination and come to the aid of each
other
-
to
remove
unauthorized
encroachers from public land and public
places in the larger public interest (Para
13, 21)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
& Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Separate counter affidavits filed by
Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel appearing for
the Prayagraj Development Authority and
Sri
Purnendu
Kumar
Singh,
learned
counsel appearing for the Union of India be
kept on record.

2. As per our last order dated
01.10.2020, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Ms. Akansha Sharma,
Advocate produced before us, a list of
eateries from whom undertaking to run
their eateries as per the Covid-19 norms has
been submitted by the State Authorities.
However, these undertakings appear to be
only of the district of Prayagraj. The list of
undertakings from eateries from all over
the State may be produced before us by the
next date fixed.

3. So far as the enforcement of our
mandamus dated 23.09.2020 with regard to
wearing of masks is concerned, learned
Additional Advocate General informed us
that full efforts were being made to get the
people of the State of U.P. to wear masks.
However, it has been brought to our notice
from the various counsel present in the
Court during the hearing of this PIL that
100 per cent masking is yet to take place.
For this purpose, we direct the Authorities
at the helm of affairs to take further action
in the following manner :-

(i) All Heads of the Department
in the whole State of U.P. should send
reminders to their employees that they and
their family members have to compulsorily
wear masks. This should be done on a daily
basis.

(ii) The State Police should itself
wear masks religiously and also see that
everyone in their vicinity wears the masks.
Here it may be mentioned that the security
personnel deputed outside the houses of
various dignitaries have not been wearing
their masks. They should wear their masks
and also request people passing by them
that they should also wear masks.

(iii) All shops even other than
eateries shall ensure that the customers/
individuals who enter their premises shall
wear their masks at all times. Needless to
say that non-wearing of masks would invite
penalty and prosecution.

(iv)
The
Advocate
Commissioners appointed by this Court
may continue to take photographs as have
been taken by them in the past and the State
Authority may take action on those
photographs.

4. In our earlier order, we had
suggested that the Medical College at
Prayagraj should have separate gates for
the Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital which
deals with the Covid and non-covid
patients. We had also pointed out that there
was one gate in the hospital which opened
in the road which joined the Nawab Yusuf
Road and the Mahatma Gandhi Road and
ran along the Medical College. This gate, if
it is opened, a further source of ingress and
egress would be made available and non-
10 All. In-Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine Centres And for providing Better Treatment to
 Corona Positive Vs. State of U.P.
339
covid patients would be able to go with
confidence inside the hospital. A joint
effort may be made by the Nagar Nigam,
Prayagraj Development Authority, Moti
Lal Nehru Medical College, Swaroop Rani
Hospital and the State Authorities to see
that an alternative gate is provided by the
19th of October, 2020. Here it may also be
stated that the shops on the Nagar Nigam
land which surround the SRN hospital be
removed as they not only create hindrance
to the ingress and egress of the ambulances
etc but they also dirty the surroundings of
the hospital.

5. So far as the standard of masks and
sanitizers are concerned, the learned
Additional Advocate General has informed
that the masks which are being sold in the
market and also being worn by people in
general are as per the ICMR guidelines.
However, with regard to the sanitizers, we
find that further clarity is required. We are
unable to understand as to whether along
with the license to manufacture and sale of
the sanitizer, any requirement is there to
take licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetic
Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetic
Rules, 1945. This aspect may be clarified
by the State by the next date.

6.

The
issue
of
unauthorized
encroachment on public land i.e. road side
public land and other vacant public land
has acquired importance in the wake of the
wide-spread Covid-19 pandemic as these
road side land encroachers have developed
markets and are inviting large congregation
of men and women which is in total
violation of the Covid-19 guidelines.
Besides this, cleaning of road side land,
management of parking of the vehicles in
commercial areas of the city alongwith
rehabilitation of the road side vendors/
street vendors in duly identified vending
zones are a few other tasks which have to
be accomplished by the various local
administrative authorities in these days of
the pandemic.

7. Coming to the issue of removal of
unauthorized encroachers from public land,
we find that in the past both the
development authorities and the municipal
bodies have been shifting their burden upon
each other citing various provisions of U.P.
Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1973')
and the various Sections of the U.P.
Municipal
Corporation
Act,
1959
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1959').

8. We have heard Sri A.P. Paul, learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
Prayagraj
Development Authority, Sri S.D. Kautilya
and Sri Vinay Sankalp, learned counsel
appearing
for
Prayagraj
Municipal
Corporation and Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.
Akansha Sharma and Sri A.K. Goyal, learned
Standing Counsel for the State, at length.

9. Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for
the Municipal Corporation has taken us
through the various provisions of the Act,
1973 viz. Sections 3, 14, 26 and 26A etc. and
various Government orders and the directives
issued by the Government as well as
Government authorities for the purposes of
removal of unauthorized encroachments in
the city. He has argued that after insertion of
Section 26A in the Act, 1973 vide U.P.
Amendment Act No.3, 1997 primarily the
power now vests with the development
authority to remove unauthorized structures
and encroachments from public land, road
and road side land as well.

10. Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for
the development authority, on the contrary,
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has argued that Sections 295 and 296 of the
Act, 1959 have yet not been repealed and
the
Municipal
corporation,
therefore,
cannot shirk from its duty of removal of
unauthorized encroachments from the areas
which have already been developed by the
development authority and have been
handed over to the Municipal Corporation
for the purposes of collection of taxes and
maintenance of drainage etc.

11. Sri Goyal, learned Additional
Advocate
General
has
argued
that
provisions of both the Acts have to be read
in harmony with each other and the power
vested under the Act, 1973 cannot be read
in derogation of the powers vested with the
Municipal Corporation under Sections 295
and 296 and a harmonious construction of
the provisions will have to be made so that
both
the
authorities
shoulder
their
responsibilities in the larger public interest.

12. We have given our thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced
by the respective learned counsel for the
parties
and,
prima
facie,
we
find
substance in the argument advanced by
the learned Additional Advocate General
that even after insertion of Section 26A
of
the
Act,
1973,
the
Municipal
corporations can equally be asked to
perform their respective duties under
Sections 295 and 296 of the Act, 1959.
So the question which now arises for our
consideration is as to whether the powers
are overlapping with each other or can
they be read in harmony with each other
so as to make them supplement each
other.

13. Admittedly both the public
authorities are to act and they have both to
come to the aid of each other to remove
unauthorized encroachers from public land
and public places in the larger public
interest.

14. Insofar as the Act, 1973 is
concerned, it has come into force much
after the Act, 1959. The Act, 1973 has been
enacted with the sole object of ensuring
urban development activities in the various
cities of Uttar Pradesh as may be notified
by the Government by approving zonal
development plan and master plan to be
framed for such purposes. Section 2(F) of
the Act, 1973 defines development area as
an area declared and notified to be such
under Section 3. Section 4 provides for the
constitution of a development authority as a
body corporate and it may include in its
territorial authority, any part or whole of
the area of a city as defined under the Act,
1959. Section 8 provides for a master plan
and a zonal development plan to be
enforced in the development area with the
approval of the State Government. The
master plan and the zonal development
plan can, of course, be amended from time
to time with the prior approval of the State
Government vide Section 13 of the Act,
1973.
Section
14
provides
for
the
development of land in development area
and further provides that if after an area is
declared as "development area" under
Section 3, no development activity shall be
undertaken or would be continued to be
carried out in such an area by any person or
body including government department
unless permission for such development is
obtained in writing from the ViceChairman of Development Authority in
accordance with the provisions of the Act.
These
sections
further
provide
that
development activities have to be in
accordance with law with such plans as
would be notified by the Development
Authority with the approval of the State
Government.
10 All. In-Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine Centres And for providing Better Treatment to
 Corona Positive Vs. State of U.P.
341

15. Section 15 provides that specific
permission is to be obtained for such
development activity. Section 25 provides
with such provisions which authorise
development authorities to carry out
inspection of development activities to
ensure that everything is being done as per
the plan. Section 26 provides for penalties.
Section 26A has now been inserted vide
U.P. Amendment Act No.-3 of 1997.
Section 26-A of the Act, 1971 is being
reproduced hereunder in its entirety:-

"26-A.
Encroachment
or
obstruction on public land- (1) Whoever
makes any encroachment on any land not
being private property, whether such land
belongs to or vests in the authority or not in
a development area, except steps over
drain in any public street, shall be
punishable with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year and
with fine which may extend to twenty
thousand rupees.

(2) Any offence punishable under
Sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.

(3) Whoever by placing or
depositing building material or any other
thing whatsoever, or otherwise makes any
obstruction in any street or land not being
private property, whether such street or
land belongs to or vests in the Authority or
not in a development area, except steps
over drain in any public street, or placing
of building material during such period as
may be permitted on payment of stacking
fees on a public street of public place, shall
be punishable with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one month or
with fine which may extend to two thousand
rupees or with both.

(4) If there are grounds to
believe that a person has made any
encroachment or obstruction on a land in
a development area which is not a private
property the Authority or an officer
authorised by it in this behalf may serve
upon the person making encroachment or
obstruction, a notice requiring him to
show cause why he shall not be required
to
remove
the
encroachment
or
obstruction within such period not being
less than fifteen days as may be specified
in the notice, and after considering the
cause, if any, shown by such person, may
order removal of such encroachment or
obstruction for reasons to be recorded in
writing :

Provided that any encroachment
made on public land by a person belonging
to weaker section on or before the date of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Planning and Development (Amendment)
Act, 1997 shall not be removed until
alternative land or accommodation is
offered to rehabilitate him in such manner
and on such terms and conditions as may
be prescribed.

Explanation- For the purposes of
this section, the expression

(1) ''a person belonging to
weaker section' means a person -

(a) whose family on the date of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Planning and Development (Amendment)
Act, 1997 does not hold any immovable
property in any city as defined in the Uttar
Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959
or any Municipal Area defined in the Uttar
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916; and

(b) whose principal source of
livelihood is manual labour, including the
practice of any craft, either by himself or
by the members of his family and includes a
rickshaw-puller or scavenger, but does not
include a person who has been assessed to
income tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961
or trade tax under the Uttar Pradesh Trade
Tax Act, 1948 or Sales Tax under the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956;
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) 'family' in relation to a person
belonging to weaker section, means the
husband or wife, as the case may be, and
unmarried minor children either or both of
them.

(5)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the forgoing provisions the
Authority of the officer authorised by it in
this behalf shall, in addition to the action
taken as provided in this section, also have
power to seize or attach any property found
on the land referred to in this section or, as
the case may be, attached to such land or
permanently fastened to anything attached
to such land.

(6) Where any property is seized
or attached by an officer authorised by the
Authority he shall immediately made a
report of such seizure or attachment to the
Authority.

(7) The Authority may make such
orders as it thinks fit for the proper custody
of the property seized or attached, pending
the conclusion of confiscation proceedings,
and if the property is subject to speedy and
natural decay, or it is otherwise expedient
so to do the Authority may order it to be
sold or otherwise disposed of.

(8) Where any property is sold as
aforesaid, the sale proceeds after deducting
the expenses, if any, of such sale and other
incidental expenses relating thereto, shall-

(a)
where
no
order
of
confiscation is ultimately passed by the
Authority, or

(b) where an order in appeal so
requires, be paid to the owner thereof or
the person from whom it is seized or
attached.

(9) Where any property is seized
or attached under Sub-section (5), the
Authority may order confiscation of such
property.

(10) No order for confiscation of
any property shall be made under Subsection (9) unless the owner of such
property or the person from whom it is
seized or attached is given-

(a) a notice in writing, informing
him of the grounds on which it is proposed
to confiscate the property;

(b) an opportunity of making a
representation in writing within such
reasonable time as may be specified in the
notice against the grounds of confiscation;
and

(c) a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter.

(11) Any order of confiscation
under this section shall not prevent the
infliction of any punishment to which the
person affected thereby may be liable
under the Act.

(12) Any person aggrieved by an
order made under Sub-section (9) may
within one month from the date of the
communication to him of such order,
appeal against it to the District Judge.

(13) On such appeal, the District
Judge may, after giving, an opportunity to
the appellant and the respondent of being
heard, pass such order as he may think fit
confirming, modifying or setting aside the
order appealed against, and pending
appeal, may stay the operation of such
order on such terms, if any, as he thinks
fit."(emphasis added)

16. From the provisions of Section
26(4) of the Act, 1973 it is explicit that
power lies now with the development
authority to ensure that no person makes
any
encroachment
or
creates
any
obstruction on a land in a development area
unless it is a private property. What is very
important to notice here is that as far as the
provisions contained under Sections 25 and
26 are concerned, they were related to the
development activities which were carried
out against the plans and against the
10 All. In-Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine Centres And for providing Better Treatment to
 Corona Positive Vs. State of U.P.
343
sanctions
made
by
the
development
authorities for the said purposes but since
the area is notified as development area and
no activity whatsoever can be carried out in
violation of the master plan and zonal
development plan, the Legislature in its
wisdom rightly incorporated Section 26A
to confer the authority with very wide
powers to ensure that obstructions to
development are not there and that no
illegal activities are carried out in a
development area. Taking the instance of
Prayagraj, it is admitted to all the parties
that Prayagraj Development Authority is
carrying out development activity in the
areas which have already stood notified by
the State Government. The area has also
been extended from time to time and as of
now the entire city area is part and parcel of
the development area notified under
Section 3 and notification has not been
withdrawn till date. So, therefore, whatever
is contrary to the master plan and zonal
development plan, as the case may be, can
always be fixed by the development
authority and appropriate action can be
taken under Section 26A of the Act, 1973.

17. This is also clear from the various
Government orders which have been issued
from time to time by the State Government
viz 3rd September, 1997; 26th September,
1997; 28th September, 1997 and 8th of
December, 1997. All these Government
orders which have been issued by the State
Government are aimed at only with the
removal of unauthorized encroachments
from public land, be it a public road or a
road side land or any other place defined as
"public place".

18. Now coming to the provisions of
Sections 295 and 296 of the Act, 1959, we
find that the Municipal Corporation, prior
to the coming into force of the Act, 1973,
had full administrative power in respect of
the municipal area notified under the Act,
1959. Section 295 restrains any person
from erecting a wall, fence or any other
structure of that kind whether fixed or
movable, permanent or temporary upon any
street, open channel drain, well or tank in
any such street so as to form an obstruction,
without prior permission of the Municipal
Commissioner. The Municipal Corporation
has been vested with the power to remove
such unauthorized erections without even
notice. Power also is there under Sections
297, 298
and
299 with
regard
to
maintenance of street etc.

19. From a close scrutiny of the
provisions as contained under Section 295
and 296, we find that these permanent or
temporary unauthorized structures have
been restrained from coming up in public
streets and drains, well or tank. So also the
Municipal Commissioner has been vested
with
the
power
to
remove
such
obstructions.

20. Now reading these provisions of
the Act, 1959 together with the provisions
of Sections 14, 26A of the Act, 1973, we
find that the powers are not overlapping.
While
development
activities
in
the
development areas have to be carried out
like carving out main public road and
public land and there is continuous process
of
inspection
by
the
development
authorities themselves in the development
areas, the unauthorized encroachers are
liable to be visited with action under
Section 26A. But at the same time, the
drainage, public street, maintenance of
lanes and by-lanes in municipal areas,
electricity poles and lighting etc. are such
activities which are within the domain of
the municipal corporation and so they have
been vested with the powers to ensure
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
removal
of
such
unauthorized
encroachments also. In any development
area if the municipal corporation has been
working and the development activities
have to be carried out as per the master
plan and zonal development plan, then in
our
considered
opinion
both
the
development authorities as well as the
municipal corporations have to act and aid
each other to ensure that no public places,
public roads or road side lands or public
buildings are occupied by any person, be it
by
raising
temporary
or
permanent
structures or be it any violation of any
development activity in an area notified
under Section 3 of the Act, 1973 and in the
municipal area notified under Section 3 of
the Act, 1959.

21. Thus what is needed is the
achievement of the objectives under both
the Acts and thus there is a requirement of
a harmonious construction of the two
different sets of provisions under the two
Acts of 1959 and 1973. We find the
provisions to be supplemental to each
other. Looking after the activities of
removal of unauthorized encroachments
and the powers of the development
authorities under Section 26-A to Section
26-D are not in any way in derogation to
the powers of the Municipal Corporations
under Section 295 and 296 and vice versa.
Both the authorities, therefore, are required
to act in coordination with each. Primarily
the duty of Development Authority is to
ensure that no road or road side public land
in the notified development area under the
master
plan
and
under
the
zonal
development plan is encroached upon.

22. We accordingly direct the
respondent
Development
Authority,
Prayagraj to immediately proceed to
remove all unauthorized encroachments
from public road and road side land and
other public places in Prayagraj with
immediate effect.

23. Submissions have been advanced
at the Bar that removal of unauthorized
structures be initiated in a phased manner.
Prayagraj Development Authority thus is
directed
to
remove
unauthorized
encroachment, to begin with, from the
Nawab
Yusuf
Road.
The
Municipal
Corporation and Police administration shall
render all necessary help in the antiencroachment drive and report shall be
submitted on the next date. After the
Prayagraj
Development
Authority
completes the anti-encroachment drive the
Nagar Nigam shall see that the Nawab
Yusuf Road is properly levelled, the road
side kerbs are cleaned and properly painted
and also all the street lights are properly lit.

24. On the issue of rehabilitation of
the road side vendors and street vendors, in
our opinion, earlier we had directed the
Vending Committee to finalize the pending
matter of approval of already identified
vending zones.

25. Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned
counsel for the municipal corporation has
submitted that a large number of vending
zones have already been approved and
the process of allotment was underway
and further the process for identifying
new vending zone was underway. He has
assured the Court that rigorous exercise
to accommodate every street vendor and
road side vendor was being carried out by
the Municipal Corporation and by the
next date fixed the task would be
completed.

Order on Public Interest Litigation
No.1289
of
2019
10 All. Chand Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345

26. In this Public Interest Litigation,
we find that on 15.10.2019 a detailed
mandamus was issued by this Court but we
find, and have also been informed by the
Advocate Commissioners present in the
Court, that parking as per the order dated
15.10.2019 has not been done. In this
regard, the Nagar Nigam may positively
see that the order dated 15.10.2019 is
complied with by the next date fixed. The
mandamus issued on 15.10.2019 is being
represented here as under:-

"In view of whatever stated
above, in addition to the directions already
given, we deem it appropriate to further
direct the respondents as follows:

(i) The parking zone identified
opposite to Yatrik Hotel shall be made
operational positively on or before 21st
October, 2019.

(ii) Viability shall be examined by
the respondents to provide parking on the
third lane at S.P. Marg till having
permanent parking zones as identified by
the respondents.

(iii)
The
respondents
shall
consider the issue with regard to reduction
of parking charges for parking the vehicles
on Mahatma Gandhi Road and shall arrive
at a definite decisions before next date of
listing.

(iv) The respondents shall ensure
complete maintenance of existing multilevel
parking within a period of three days from
today. The respondents shall take care of
elevators, lighting system and shall make
the entire area stray animals free.

(iv) The respondents shall put
necessary highlighted marks to identify the
parking space on the road concerned.

(v) The multi-storyed buildings
and other buildings situated in the city of
Prayagraj which are also having their own
sanctioned parking space shall make those
functional positively and shall not utilize
that for any other purpose except parking.
If any building owner or occupier utilizes
such parking space for any other purpose
than the parking then it shall be open for
the respondents to take appropriate penal
measures
including
initiation
of
proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 before this Court."

27. In the city of Prayagraj, we also find
that no attention is being paid to the fused
street light bulbs which we have found in
almost every locality. We expect from the
Nagar Nigam to replace all the fused street
light bulbs in the city of Prayagraj by the next
date fixed.

28. Put up this matter on 14.10.2020 at
02:00 PM.

29. We appreciate the work being done
by the Advocate Commissioners in these
days of pandemic. We, therefore, direct that
the Advocate Commissioners be paid a
minimum of Rs.500/- per report which they
have submitted. This would be in consonance
with the Circular dated 26.04.2016 issued by
National Legal Services Authority wherein
every counsel has to be paid a minimum of
Rs.500/- per application which is filed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7908 of 2020

Chand Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant: