Taking a serious cognisance of ‘The Hitavada’ report about CCTV cameras on ‘unoperational mode’, Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, on Thursday, directed the vendor Larsen and Toubro (L&T) to immediately restore access to camera feed to police and civic body while disapproving such action over nonpayment of dues. Right now, there are 3,700 CCTV cameras installed at all important places and major streets in the city. Public interest and public safety must be duly protected, the High Court stated while making it clear that action of contractor agency to snap CCTV feed due to contractual dispute over payment was legally questionable.

 

Asking the parties to take action permissible under the contract and law, the High Court warned that as Constitutional Court it would not allow such inter-se dispute to adversely affect public interest and safety. Taking suo-motu notice of the news report about how the stopping of access to CCTV camera feed would deprive City Police from tracking traffic violators and suspect movement of anti-social movements, a division bench consisting of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Anil Kilor took the agency and authorities to task and asked them to resolve the dispute at the earliest in larger public interest. “If the monitors and TV screens are to go blank, police will not be able to control and monitor the activities of the criminals and also be unable to ensure smooth carriage of vehicular traffic. It may also have cascading effect on the society in general,” the High Court noted with great concern. It also expressed anguish over the impasse, which resulted due to non-payment of Rs 135 crore to L&T by Nagpur Smart and Sustainable City Development Corporation (NSSDCL). Such denial of camera feeds installed to track all activities will gradually lead to loss of control over the activities of the criminals by police and a sense of fear will grip the whole society, the High Court noted with concern. “The consequence is deleterious to public interest.

 

In fact, if no access is provided to police, the very purpose of installation of CCTV cameras would be defeated and it may also go against the spirit of the directions issued by this Court regarding installation of the cameras,” the High Court noted while deploring the action. Amicus Curiae Shreerang Bhandarkar moved an urgent civil application highlighting the sorry state of affairs and how the contractual dispute between agency and NSSCDCL would deprive the law enforcement agencies their much-needed access to the CCTV camera feed. Extensively quoting ‘The Hitavada’ news report, the Amicus Curiae stated that such a step was shocking and needed to be dealt with sternly since the agency had no legal right to deny access to the feeds to law enforcement agencies, and demanded strong penal action. The agency officer Ajay Ramteke claimed that it had to recover Rs 135 crore from NSSDCL and stated that camera feed was recorded and CCTV surveillance was on; only the access to City Police and NMC was stopped due to non-payment of dues. NSSDCL counsel Sudhir Puranik claimed that it had duly deposited its share with Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Limited (Maha-IT) and demanded immediate restoration of access to CCTV feed, which is viewed in City Operations Centre in NMC building and Control Room of Nagpur Police. Additional GP Dipak Thakre also slammed the action of agency in disrupting the access to CCTV feed.

 

The High Court, prima-facie, opined that step taken by L&T Limited in stopping access to CCTV cameras apparently interfered in performance of public duty by public authorities and was legally questionable. NMC and City Police asserted that L&T did not own the entire hardware including CCTV cameras. Noting this submission, the High Court asked whether any maintenance agency like L&T had a right to stop access and what would be its legal implication. The agency urged the High Court to direct Maha-IT to release dues, to which the High Court asked the newly-added respondents -- Maha-IT -- to look into this grievance and pay a legitimate sum within 15 days, provided the execution of contractual work and discharge of contractual obligations both were found to be satisfactory.