HC pulls up NMC over waterlogging crisis, asks ‘why collect taxes if basic services fail?’

Advertisement

Nagpur: In a scathing indictment of Nagpur’s civic administration, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday sharply questioned the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) over the city’s recurring waterlogging, asking why citizens should pay taxes when even the most basic civic services remain in disarray.

Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Janmanch President Rajiv Jagtap through advocates Parvez Mirza and Mrunal Chakravarty, a Division Bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta made it clear that government agencies cannot escape accountability by passing the blame.

“If citizens pay taxes for civic amenities but, in return, have to endure potholed roads, waterlogged streets and flooded homes, then what exactly are the taxes being collected for?” the Bench orally observed, expressing strong displeasure over the city’s chronic drainage failures.

The court was examining contradictory affidavits submitted by the NMC and the Public Works Department (PWD). While the NMC blamed the ongoing World Bank-funded stormwater drainage project for waterlogging near Somalwar School and claimed that maintenance of the Narendra Nagar railway underbridge fell under the PWD, the latter asserted that the Padole Square-Somalwar School stretch was entirely under the NMC’s jurisdiction.

Advertisement

Rejecting the blame game, the Bench observed that citizens were the ultimate sufferers and directed the NMC to submit a comprehensive, time-bound action plan by August 11 outlining permanent measures to eliminate waterlogging across the city. The PWD has also been asked to submit its independent proposal.

The High Court also expressed serious concern over the repeated flooding of the Narendra Nagar railway underbridge. On a request by the PWD, the Bench allowed the Railway administration to be impleaded as a respondent, observing that all concerned agencies must work together to resolve the long-pending problem.

The judges made it clear that determining which department was responsible was secondary to ensuring relief for citizens.

“Both departments exist to serve the public. Rather than deciding who is responsible, what matters is that citizens are suffering,” the Bench remarked, stressing that administrative turf wars cannot come at the cost of public safety and convenience.

The court recalled that during the previous hearing it had already criticised the NMC for relying on routine meetings, affidavits and assurances instead of presenting a scientific, long-term strategy to tackle urban flooding. It noted that despite repeated monsoons exposing the same vulnerabilities, the civic body had failed to identify the root causes or prepare a sustainable mitigation plan.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke also issued a stern warning to the authorities, asking, “Citizens pay taxes. What concrete steps will you take to provide them the services they deserve? Otherwise, we will have to pass a formal order.”

The Bench emphasised that preventing monsoon waterlogging and ensuring proper execution of public works are joint responsibilities of the NMC and the PWD, and neither authority can evade its statutory obligations by shifting responsibility.

Granting the civic body one final opportunity to explain the corrective measures it intends to implement, the High Court posted the matter for further hearing on August 11, while indicating that failure to present a satisfactory roadmap could invite stringent judicial directions.

Advocate Mrunal Chakravarty represented the petitioner Janmanch, Advocate Gemini Kasat appeared for the NMC, while Advocate Shishir Uke represented the State Government.

Advertisement