Pained by the tragic death of renowned gastroenterologist Dr Deepak Amrapurkar who fell into an open manhole during Tuesday’s deluge in South-Central Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Friday directed the Maharashtra Government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to file their say on the lack of proper upkeep of manholes and potholes in the metropolis.
Expressing its inability to deal with the twin issues of filing an FIR against erring civic officials and the award of compensation to the next of kin of the deceased doctor, a HC division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice N M Jamdar asked Dr Amrapurkar’s bereaved family members to file complaint with a proper forum.
“We are also very much pained that such an excellent doctor had to meet such a tragic end. But we cannot become emotional. In a PIl, there are certain limitations. Prayers seeking the authorities’ attention to issues of potholes and manholes can be heard by us in this PIl," Chief Justice Chellur said.
Chief Justice Chellur went onto state that it could not consider the prayers seeking registration of FIR under section 304 (II) of IPC and compensation cannot be considered in a PIl. “let the relatives of the doctor file a separate plea or complaint before the correct forum for this,” she said.
Chief Justice Chellur asked the petitioner to go ahead and lodge an FIR with the police if they desired an investigation. "Even though it is no one's case, the case will not be registered but please go and lodge a private complaint if they do not register the case” she said.
The body of noted gastroenterologist Dr Amrapurkar, who had gone missing while he was on his way to his Prabhadevi residence on Tuesday evening, was found on Thursday morning near a storm water drain at Worli in south-central Mumbai.
Dr Amrapurkar, who had abandoned his vehicle near Elphinstone Road railway station, asked his driver to go home and began walking towards his home on Tuesday, had fallen into an open manhole while wading through a waist-deep water that had inundated the Tulsi Pipe Road.
The HC bench scheduled the next hearing of the PIl for September 14, by when it expected the Maharashtra Government and BMC to file their affidavits. The HC bench was hearing a PIl filed by the Federation Of Retail Traders Welfare Association (FRTWA) filed a public interest litigation in the Bombay High Court, seeking registration of cases against the officials of the Maharashtra Government and BMC under section 304 A (Causing death by negligence) and demanding a compensation of Rs 50 lakh.
In its PIl, the FRTWA has made the Maharashtra Government, Urban Development department, BMC’s Municipal Commissioner, Chief Engineer, civic Sewage Operation Department, Chief Engineer, civic Storm Water Drain and Mumbai Police Commissioner as respondents in the case.
The petitioners also wanted the BMC to declare current policy on “the working and operations of manholes” so that it can be understood as to what its scope is, whether it is effective enough in dealing with fatal incidents.
The petitioners had also wanted that until the case is heard, BMC should be on a war footing to fit ‘iron grill’ on all the drainage (gutter) systems and manholes in Mumbai, so that even if it’s kept open or even if someone fidgets around with it or is left unattended, no person can fall straight into the open drainage/manhole and die on account of suffocation and/or drowning.
It also suggested that the said iron grill should be openable and designed in such a way that water/trash can easily pass through it without any major obstruction.
Among other things, the petitioner urged the court to constitute “an advisory committee of ex-bureaucrats and technocrats for carrying out an inspection of all manholes in the city and to help form a policy to avoid such fatal incidents in future.”
“It is apparent that only on account of the gross negligence on the part of BMC and its officers, the victim was deprived of his life....There were no sign boards, no barricading near the manhole cautioning the public at large about the prevailing danger, the petitioner contended.