The Gauhati High Court closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents for monitoring the progress and timely completion of works relating to schemes of drinking water supply under the Swachh Bharat Mission in the State of Nagaland, particularly, Phek district.   

The petitioner has annexed various sanction letters with the  petition and alleges that though the works were sanctioned way back in the year 2013, 2014 and 2015, the same have not been completed.   

The respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein pertinent assertion is made that the schemes in question are not being offered under the Swachh Bharat Mission but the same were sanctioned under the National Rural Drinking Water Programme. It is further asserted that the amounts as indicated in the writ petition were sanctioned during the financial years 2014-2018 under the Swachh Bharat Mission and that the same were allocated to the respective districts of the State of Nagaland for implementation of programmes under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) to improve the levels of cleanliness in rural areas through Solid and Liquid Waste Management activities and to make the Gram Panchayats Open Defecation Free.  

Regarding the issues of projects pertaining to drinking water, it has been stated that the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation sanctioned amounts of Rs.113.08 lakhs and Rs.350.00 lakhs, respectively as grants-in-aid in the State of Nagaland in the year 2013-2014 which has been allocated to different villages and works are under progress. However, one project in the village Leshemi was damaged by unknown miscreants on 26.06.2020 and an enquiry is being undertaken. It is further stated that in the year 2017-2018, a sum of Rs.7,90,08,300/- was sanctioned by the Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation as grants-in-aid for various villages and the projects are nearing completion. In affirmation of the fact that the projects are being sincerely executed, various photographs have been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition.  

The Division Bench of Chief Justice  Sandeep Mehta  and Justice Devashis Baruah find that the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition negate the apprehensions raised by the petitioner in the petition. Though an affidavitin-reply has been filed by the petitioner, nothing significant has been stated therein which can persuade the Court to discard the averments made in the affidavit of the respondents that the projects/schemes are being implemented in all sincerity.

Hence, the Court is of the view that no further directions are required to be given to the respondents in this PIL and, thus, the same is closed.

The Gauhati High Court gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievances regarding sudden change of administrative district.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice  Sandeep Mehta and Justice Soumitra Saikia disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) preferred by the petitioners who are the residents of district of Cachar, Assam. 
The petitioners are aggrieved that on the eve of the process of commencement of delimitation exercise in the State of Assam w.e.f. 01.01.2023, the impugned notification dated 31.12.2022 was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, General Administration Department. By this impugned notification, the existing administrative district in respect of the revenue villages mentioned in the said notification has been changed from Cachar district to Karimganj district.
According to the petitioners, such sudden change of administrative district would cause enormous inconveniences and harassment to the general public of those villages, besides causing administrative hardship. Representation was filed before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam as well as the Principal Secretary, Government of Assam, General Administration Department which, however, according to the petitioners, has not been considered.  
D. Saikia,  Advocate General of the State submits that once the delimitation process has commenced, there is no question of change of boundaries until this process is completed. However, he fairly submits that the petitioners may approach the authority including Delimitation Commission for redressal of their grievances.   
P.K. Roychoudhury, counsel for the petitioners submits that if liberty is given, the petitioners will approach the authority and file a representation seeking redressal of their grievances.   
In view of the submissions at the Bar, the  PIL is closed by the High Court  without expressing anything on merit, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority and to file a representation seeking redressal of their grievances. The petitioners are also entitled to approach the Delimitation Commission as well as the State authorities ventilating their grievances. The concerned authorities will thereafter objectively consider and pass appropriate orders in the representations to be filed by the petitioners., the Court directed.