Gauhati High Court
Dinesh Ch. Paul vs The Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary ... on 21 November, 2019
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010007442018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : PIL 2/2018
1:DINESH CH. PAUL
S/O- LATE PRAFULLA KR. PAUL, R/O- KALIBARI ROAD,
WARD NO.5, P.O AND P.S- HOJAI, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782435
2: ARYA PRAKASH SHARMA
S/O- LATE GIRILAL SHARMA, R/O- J K ROAD WARD NO.14
P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
3: RAJ KUMAR CHOUHAN
S/O- BHAGIRATH CHOUHAN, R/O- UTTAR BIDYANAGAR
P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
4: HUMAYUN AHMED
S/O- LATE NURUL HOQUE AHMED, R/O- RICE MARKET
(PURANA BAZAR) P.O AND P.S- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
5: DILIP BORDHAN
S/O- LATE PARESH CH BORDHAN, R/O- GOBINDAPALLY SWARUPANANDA
ROAD WARD NO.6 P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM, PIN- 782435
6: ALOK SARMAH
S/O- LATE DEBOKANTA SARMAH R/O- BISHNUPALLY
WARD NO. 18 P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
7: JAWAHIR HUSSAIN
S/O- LATE SIKANDER ALI R/O- ABDUL HASSIB ROAD
BISHNUPALLY P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
8: MOHAN MORE
S/O- LATE SHANKARLAL MORE R/O- NEW MARKET
P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
9: SITARAM SARMA
S/O- LATE RAMKUMAR SARMA R/O- NEAR SANKARDEV JR COLLEGE
P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
Page No.# 2/6
10: RAJENDRA SINGH
S/O- LATE MELA SINGH R/O- NATUN BAZAR P.O AND P.S- HOJAI
DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
11: GURDEEP SINGH
S/O- LATE PRITAM SINGH R/O- STATION ROAD NATUN BAZAR WARD NO.1
P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
12: BIRENDRA KR. ROY CHOUDHARY
S/O- LATE MANURANJAN ROU CHOUDHARY R/O- KRISHNA NAGAR
WARD NO.9 P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
13: ABHIJIT DAS
S/O- LATE BABUL DAS R/O- KRISHNA NAGAR
WARD NO.9 P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
14: SUBASH ROY
S/O- LATE GAURANGA LAL ROY R/O- BISNUPALLY
WARD NO. 16 P.O AND P.S- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAMPIN- 78243
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA,
RAILWAY DEPTT., NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD
RAIL BHAWAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI INDIA PIN- 110001
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM UBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD)
GUWAHATI-6
5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND REHABILITATION DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06
6:THE GENERAL MANAGER
N F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781011
7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HOJAI DISTRICT DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435
8:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
N F RAILWAY LUMDING ASSAM PIN- 78244
For the petitioners : Mr. R. Majumdar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. A. Dasgupta, Senior Standing Counsel, Railways.
Page No.# 3/6
Mr. B. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Railways
Mr. T.C. Chutia, Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam.
Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 21-11-2019 (Ajai Lamba, C.J.) Shri Dinesh Chandra Paul and 13 others have preferred this Public Interest Litigation, essentially against the Union of India, Railway Department and other related functionaries questioning the path of overbridge being constructed by the Railway Authorities.
It has been pleaded that the Railway Authorities are taking steps for constructing Railway overbridge at Hojai Main Road (J.K. Kedia Road), which is a very busy and commercial hub and also lifeline of Hojai without implementing the project for construction of Railway flyover bridge at Natun Bazar (replacing Railway Level Crossing Gate No.JGJN- HJI, ST-40), Nilbagan, Hojai, which was earlier approved.
2. It appears that a bridge was to be constructed over path stated as ST-40. Subsequently, however, the respondents in their wisdom changed the path to the proposed path.
3. Gist of the issue has been captured by this Court in its order dated 30.01.2019 passed while dealing with I.A. (Civil) No.3314/2018. The order reads as under:-
"Heard Mr. SS Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S Seal and Ms. S Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 8.
Though we have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1,2,6 and 8 and, in that light, we have taken note the initial approval through the communication dated 18.9.2013 specifically earmarking the amount to the Railway Level Crossing Gate to be replaced by Railway Overbridge at Natun Bazar Page No.# 4/6 with specific reference to the spot as 'ST-40' Nilbagan Hojai Tumpreng Road at Hojai, Nagaon, the grievance of the petitioners is that the change effected from the said location is without approval from the concerned Ministry.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2,6 and 8 in reply to the same has contended that the spot has been identified without appropriate consideration being made at the first instance and the approval as granted was not by the Ministry concerned, but by the 'DONER' which does not provide the funds. In that light, it is sought to be contended that even in the revised estimate for conventional doubling of existing BG line from Hojai to Lumding, a higher amount has been sanctioned by the Railways and, therefore, in that circumstance, when it was found that feasibility at ST-40 for an overbridge cannot be considered further and as acquisition of land is also involved and the Public Works Department has been taken into confidence in the process, the proper course at this point is to secure appropriate consideration to be made by respondent No.2 in this regard.
We are also conscious that a public work of the present nature should not be lightly interfered by this Court.
In that view, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 8 to secure instructions from respondent No.2 in that regard and an appropriate affidavit be filed by an authorized officer on behalf of respondent No.2. In order to file such affidavit, respondent No.2 or such delegated officer with authority shall look into the grievance as put forth in this petition with regard to change of location without appropriate approval and in that regard, shall make a sworn statement as to whether the Railway Board is in agreement with the change that has been effected.
The affidavit be filed in two weeks. A copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 8."
4. In deference to above extracted order, affidavit dated 18.07.2019 has been filed with the accompanying documents. The pleadings in the affidavit and the accompanying documents make it clear that the Chairman of Railway Board is in agreement with the change that has been effected on the path of the bridge.
We have gone through the pleadings in affidavit dated 18.07.2019 (supra). We have also gone through document dated 10.07.2019 authored by Chairman, Railway Board Page No.# 5/6 and ex-officio Principal Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Railways, namely, Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav. So far as authorisation is concerned, we are satisfied.
5. So far as public interest in the path of the bridge is concerned, we have referred to in detail the detailed plan of the earlier proposed bridge (ST-40) and the bridge being constructed presently, with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondent Railways. We find that the starting point of the bridge and the ending point of the bridge remains the same, with slight variation. The only difference appears to be that the bridge being constructed is going over a commercial hub.
6. We have also taken into account the fact that the construction work over the bridge has already started. Photographs in evidence to that fact are available on record, which established that third party interests have already been created.
7. The main cause of concern of the petitioners appears to be that the bridge under construction would be going over congested area, including over market place, Railway Station, Hospitals, etc. So much so learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that certain persons having business interest in the area over which the bridge would be constructed have preferred WP(C) No.2940/2019 (Raju Nandi & 26 Ors. -Vs- The Union of India & 4 Ors.). It has been pleaded that the business of the said persons would be adversely affected.
8. Although allegations of malafide have been made, however, while going through the petition, we do not find that any allegation of personal malafide has been made against any officer or official.
9. Be that as it may, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere in this Public Interest Litigation. Ordinarily, the Writ Court will not substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the Railway Authorities or other State functionaries, who have proposed to construct an overbridge which would be going over the Railway Station also. We have also referred to a feasibility report dated 21.07.2017 submitted by the Office of Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Odali State Road Sub-Division, District- Hojai. The said authority also agrees with the change in the path of the bridge.
10. The Writ Court will not have the relevant inputs in regard to feasibility of construction of an overbridge. There are many issues involved in such cases, including the Page No.# 6/6 issue of acquisition of land.
11. Considering the various facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant