An Administration Loyal to Its Salt or a System Drifting Away from Justice?

Special Article: Serious Questions Raised by a Six-Year Struggle for a Right of Way

What began as a dispute over a simple agricultural access road has, over the last six years, evolved into a larger question about administrative accountability, the implementation of law, and the ability of ordinary citizens to secure justice.

The most disturbing aspect of this case is that the authorities appear fully aware of who is creating obstacles, who is preventing the implementation of legal orders, and who is repeatedly obstructing the lawful use of the right of way. Yet meaningful action remains absent.

Law Should Command Respect, Not Depend on Requests

Obstructing government work is not a minor issue. In any rule-based system, such conduct should invite legal consequences. Instead, the alleged wrongdoer is repeatedly persuaded, requested, and advised rather than being confronted with the authority of the law.

Rather than ensuring full implementation of the road access order, the administration appears content with issuing verbal advice and appeals for cooperation.

Burden on the Victims, Not on the Obstructionists

Instead of taking direct responsibility for clearing the road, the burden is shifted onto the affected farmers themselves. They are expected to remove thorny bushes, clear obstructions, and make the road usable at their own effort and expense.

Even more troubling is the tendency to recommend removal of only a few branches while ignoring entire thorny trees and major obstacles standing directly in the disputed pathway.

Questions That Defy Logic

When affected farmers point out specific obstructions, they are sometimes asked why they notice thorny trees in one location and not elsewhere.

The answer is simple: the issue is not every tree in the area. The issue is the trees and obstructions that block a legally recognized access road. Yet this distinction is either misunderstood or deliberately overlooked.

A Road That Exists on Paper but Not in Practice

The road is said to be open, but its boundaries remain unclear.

The road is said to be available, yet significant obstacles remain.

The road is recognized, but efforts to make it practically usable are resisted.

Farmers have requested that stone and gravel be laid in a low-lying section where water accumulates during the monsoon. Without such improvements, the road becomes difficult and sometimes dangerous to use. Yet these requests have reportedly been rejected.

Ironically, an earlier administrative decision cited water accumulation and risk to human safety as grounds for refusing the road. Now, when the road has finally been recognized, efforts to make it safe and functional face opposition.

Different Standards for Different People?

Observers cannot help but notice a contrast in tone. Those accused of creating obstacles are approached with patience and persuasion. Those seeking implementation of lawful orders are often met with resistance, warnings, or dismissive responses.

This contrast naturally raises questions about priorities and fairness within the system.

Why Does Action Follow Protest?

The history of this dispute reveals a troubling pattern. Letters receive little response. Applications remain pending. Follow-ups produce limited results.

Yet when hunger strikes, demonstrations, or public protests occur, administrative activity suddenly increases.

Even then, actions often remain incomplete, leaving the core issue unresolved and forcing affected citizens to continue their struggle.

Why is there such hesitation in acting against those who obstruct lawful orders?

Why is persuasion preferred over enforcement?

Why are legal decisions not implemented completely and effectively?

Why must ordinary farmers repeatedly resort to protest simply to obtain what has already been legally recognized?

These are questions that deserve answers from the administration.

When citizens seeking justice are forced into endless struggle while those creating obstacles are repeatedly accommodated, one unavoidable question remains:

Is this an administration loyal to its duty, or a system gradually drifting away from justice?

---

Author: Arun Ramchandra Pangarkar
Founder: Shramik Kranti – Voice of the Poor