Uttarakhand High Court
Swami Shri Achhyutanandji Maharaj vs The Government Of Uttarakhand And ... on 12 March, 2018
Bench: K.M. Joseph, Sharad Kumar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 192 of 2016
Swami Shri Achhyutanandji Maharaj ........... Petitioner
Versus
The Govt. of Uttarakhand and others ............. Respondents
Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.
Dated: 12th March, 2018
Coram: Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:-
"(a) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to take action on urgent basis for constructing the alternative route as provided in the Master Plan from Motichur to Sapt Sarovar Marg via Haripurkalan alongside NH-
58 and complete the project within time bound period; and."
2. Very briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:-
During events like Kumbh, Ardh-kumbh, Ganga Snan and on other religious gatherings, the place becomes so disturbed with huge traffic and, in essence, the subject matter of the complaint is the inaction in not building an alternative route connecting to the city of Haridwar. Petitioner made request to the Chief Minister. The office of the Chief Minister requested, vide Annexure No. 3, to the Principal Secretary, PWD for necessary action. Petition was sent to the then Mela Adhikari. The matter was sent to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rishikesh vide Annexure No. 5. Thereafter, the Mela Adhikari again requested for submission of report vide Annexure No. 6. The Chief Engineer Level-II, PWD, Dehradun reported to the Superintending 2 Engineer that the construction of the alternative route is not possible on the urgent basis as the land of 1500 meters and 500 meters will be required respectively, which will take longer time. Therefore, the construction could not be done before the forthcoming Mela (Annexure No. 8). Petitioner filed Writ Petition (PIL) No. 193 of 2015. The same came to be disposed of by Annexure No. 9 judgment, by which the petitioner was given the liberty to approach the Government. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, Level-II sent estimate to the Secretary, Department of PWD, which according to the petitioner is Annexure No. 10. In this regard, the technical team of the Department had conducted thorough enquiry and sent the estimate for the approval of the Government. Petitioner again requested to the Chief Minister for early action vide Annexure No. 11. The Government of Uttarakhand asked the report of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Dehradun on certain queries vide Annexure No. 12, but nothing happened and again the petitioner approached the Chief Minister vide Annexure No. 13. Thereafter, again the petitioner approached the Chief Minister vide Annexure No. 15. The Chief Engineer vide Annexure No. 16 sent the report on the queries raised by the Secretary. Annexure No. 18 is relied on by the petitioner, which is a letter of the Chief Engineer to the Government through the Deputy Secretary (PWD) submitting that the Executive Engineer, Establihsment Division, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun did not reply on the matter and it appears that he is not in agreement with the matter, and the action is awaited from the office of Forest Conservator, Rajaji Tiger Reserve, Dehradun. It is the case of the petitioner that there is only one route connecting Rishikesh to Haridwar, which caters to the requirement of traffic coming from Rishikesh and also to the traffic coming from Dehradun, and this route becomes heavily congested and creates traffic jam for hours together, which is dangerous to the necessary services like ambulance, office goers, school buses etc. Therefore, there is need for an alternative route and, accordingly, the petitioner is before this Court, claiming the relief, which we have referred to.3
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 (Chief Engineer, Level-II, Regional Office, Public Works Department, Dehradun). Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:
4) That the contents of paragraph no. 2 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. In reply thereof it is stated that the alternative route in additional to National Highway No. 58 from Motichoor to Sapt Saroovar Route via Haripur Kalan alongside National Highway-58 sought to be constructed in the present Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner, is in fact not in the interest of general public but in the interest of Bhum Niketan Ashram only.
It is submitted that the length of the alternative route is about 2 Km. and passes through the land of Irrigation and Forest Departments of the State. It is relevant to state here that 500 meter stretch of the said alternative route passes through Rajaji Tiger Reserve, as such, the first hurdle in proceeding with the alternative route is to get clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India as well as from the National Board of Wildlife. In addition to the aforesaid, as stated earlier that there is no public interest in proceeding with the alternative route inasmuch as in the entire 2 Km. stretch of route there is no habitation. Since the alternative route falls in Forest Division, as such, the Forest Department is also a necessary party. Copy of the handmade sketch Map of the proposed alternative route is being annexed as Annexure CA-1 to this affidavit.
7) That the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition are not admitted hence denied. In reply thereof it is stated that during the Kumbh, Ardhkumbh and various other festivals and on occasion of holy dips for the convenience of the public arrangements are made for smooth flow of pilgrims as well as traffic on the route. Since, the aforesaid alternative route of 2 Km is along side National Highway-58 and presently the National Highway-58 is being widened and converted into Four Lane and major portion of the work has been completed, as such, in future there appears to be no need of the aforesaid alternative route."
4. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit.
45. We heard Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.
6. What the petitioner seeks is a writ of mandamus to construct an alternative route. We have noticed the pleadings. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the alternative route is provided in the Master Plan, but we notice the stand of the State Government to be that they do not consider it necessary, particularly, having regard to the widening of the National Highway and also having regard to the fact that the alternative route would go through the forest land for some part.
7. It is trite that the superior Courts, even in Public Interest Litigation, would not usurp what is essentially governmental matters and powers relating to policy. It is, essentially, for the policy-maker to decide where the roads are to be constructed. This is not a case where no reasons are forthcoming and it could be treated as a completely irrational decision, therefore, inviting the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. Therefore, we would think that we need not give any assistance to the petitioner by giving the direction, as sought for. We think that the writ petition is only to be dismissed and we do so.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
12.03.2018 12.03.2018
Rahul