MP High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Claiming No Fire Brigade In Jabalpur Cantonment, Lack Of Amenities For Sanitation Staff

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (July 01) refused to entertain a PIL which among other issues claimed that Jabalpur Cantonment Board does not have a fire brigade and does not provide basic amenities to contractual sanitation workers which were stated to belong to a particular community.

In doing so the court said that if the petitioner who is also a sanitation worker and belongs to the same community could approach the court, so can the affected workers.

The counsel thus sought to withdraw the plea which was permitted by the bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, and it further granted him liberty to file a fresh plea on behalf of the concerned communities.

During the hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, "In the set up of Cantonment board Jabalpur there is no fire brigade no fire fighters...basic amenities are not there".

He further argued that Jabalpur cantonment board recruits safai karamcharis i.e. sanitation workers on contract basis, and they are not given any amenities which they are entitled to.

The bench asked, "This is a PIL or private petition? You are a safai karmi. The moment you say safai karmi's are not being given this, that means you are seeking benefit for yourself".

The counsel said that the petitioner belongs to the concerned community but does not work in establishment of cantonment board. The court then orally asked that when was the last time a fire took place.

The counsel said, "My own home was burned in 2011". The bench asked, "What happened in 2025?"

The counsel submitted, "They do not have one (fire brigade) even today. The one given by Nagar Nigam has been returned back to them. They do not even have fire fighters".

At this stage the bench asked, "Is it mandatory to have fire station? So every housing colony should have a fire station?"

The counsel responded, "An institution which is given a statutory responsibility to provide civil amenities in a locality that is cantonment...It is not a housing colony it is cantonment board. It is a residential area". He said that board is under the Union of India.

On the court's query the counsel said that board calls for fire brigade from municipal corporation which is 7 km away, however the cantonment has a Police station and hospitals.

The counsel appearing for the cantonment board said, "If there is a major fire, we are in the defence...defence has one of the biggest facilities to fight fire...We are managing civilian areas of class A land. It is there in Defence Estate itself. Class A land is Union of India's land which the army is occupying it. Class B lands are those...where civilians can come and live in. Traditionally throughout everywhere municipal ambulances are working. When there is a major fire in town defence fire fighters go there".

The court then asked the petitioner's counsel about the prayers in the PIL, to which the counsel submitted that sanitation workers are not being provided with safety guards and are not given over time, among other issues.

The court said that the workers can raise these issues on their own. It orally said, "Their (board's) employees will raise the grievance against their employer. PIL is for someone who either has no knowledge, education or financial resources to approach the court. You are filing this for all safai karmis engaged by them (cantonment board). You are yourself a safai karmi. So why cannot they file their own private petition. We can understand for people who have nothing, no means, no education...and on their behalf a PIL is filed. You are filing for somebody who has the capacity. If you have the knowledge they also have knowledge. Why cannot they file?".

The counsel submitted that he is the president of a community and his community members were suffering.

"If there is a labour dispute, you raise a labour dispute...You cannot file it in your name...You have filed in your name as an individual. If plea is maintainable as an association it can be filed in that name," the court orally said.

At this stage the counsel sought leave to withdraw the plea which was permitted.

The court in its order said, "Learned counsel for petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on behalf of Dumar, Dom & Mahato Communities. Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved".

Case title: DILEEP MEHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIAN

WP - 23453/2025 (PIL)

Click Here To Read/Download Order