Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mal Chand Jain vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 26 July, 2013
Bench: Amitava Roy, P.K.Lohra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9415/2012
Mal Chand Jain V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors.
Date when the order was
reserved ::- 24.7.2013
Date of pronouncement
of order ::- 26.7.2013
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy
Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.Lohra
Mr.M.C.Bhoot, Senior Advocate with Mr.K.S.Yadav for the
petitioner.
Mr.G.R.Punia, Additional Advocate General)
Dr.Sachin Acharya )
Dr.P.S.Bhati )-for the respondents.
Mr.Mukul Singhvi )
ORDER
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Mr. Amitava Roy, CJ)
Heard Mr.M.C.Bhoot, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.R.Punia, learned Additional Advocate General, Dr.Sachin Acharya, Dr.P.S.Bhati and Mr.Mukul Singhvi for the respondents.
The petitioner has averred that he is a resident of Suratgarh and a journalist by profession and that he is also a social worker. 2 He has introduced himself as well as a member of Chaudhary Charan Singh Chowk Over Bridge Nirman Sangharsh Samiti (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Samiti") constituted with the objective of united movement to fulfil the public demand of construction of over bridge at the crossing no.94 and 95 situated on the busiest traffic road of Suratgarh City in the District of Sri Ganganagar. According to the petitioner, the proposal for the aforementioned project was accepted by the State Government in the year 2010-11 following which the Public Works Department of the State (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the PWD") was authorized to undertake the construction of over bridge at the railway crossing no.LC-95 and LC-94 The Committee was constituted by the PWD with its high ranking officials, who had technical expertise and that on a comprehensive and minute study of all relevant aspects, a proposal was prepared and submitted to the State Government by it. According to the petitioner, the proposal disclosed TVU (Total Value of Use) of crossing C-95 to be 104265 as per census of 2008 and a recommendation was made for three way and four lane over bridge covering two crossings, namely, C-95 and C-94, costing Rs.35 crores, out of which, Rs.8 crores was to be borne by the Railways on cost sharing basis. The proposal, according to the petitioner, contemplated that the over bridge would not only join the two parts of the City inhabited on both sides of the railway track but also solve the problems of congestion generated by the traffic from the national highways 3 joining Sri Ganganagar, Hanumangarh and Bikaner. The petitioner has stated that on receipt of this proposal, the State Government, however, further authorized the Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Limited (for short, hereafter referred to as "the RIDCOR) to prepare a plan following which a second proposal was mooted in the form of two way over bridge connecting Badopal, Rawatsar and Suratgarh City road. The petitioner has averred that the second proposal was unacceptable as the same ran contrary to the survey done by the City Planning Department and the PWD and the very foundation thereof was untenable besides being not viable for execution as following the closure of the railway crossing no.C-95, there was no alternate way to release the traffic towards Hanumangarh. That this proposal did not meet the approval of the representatives of the railways, has also been stated.
Situated thus, the Samiti approached this Court with D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9813/2011, which was disposed of on 14.10.2011 with the liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation and the respondents were directed to consider the same. A representation, thereafter, was submitted on behalf of the Samiti to the Chief Secretary of the State and hearing thereon was taken by the jurisdictional Collector in which the representatives of the Samiti were present.
In this background, the respondents no.10 and 11 Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure & Finance Development Corporation and 4 IRCON International Limited respectively mooted a third proposal, according to which, the ROB was to start from Rawatsar road at the point of school and land on the road towards Sri Ganganagar. A provision for RUB (Railway Under Bridge) from Bikaner side to Hanumangarh was also proposed. According to the petitioner, the third proposal is also not acceptable amongst others on the ground that the traffic from all sides towards Suratgarh City and vice-versa while passing through RUB or ROB would have to negotiate through the service roads having 12.75 mtrs. width or have to take unnecessary round of 2-3 kms. The instant petition has thus been filed in the above factual background seeking appropriate writ, order or direction to the State-respondents to construct the railway over bridge as per the first proposal while quashing the third proposal.
The respondent no.7-Municipal Board, Suratgarh in its reply while admitting the pre-eminence of the project has asserted that the execution thereof has long started and the works are proceeding with ample speed. That huge infrastructure and basic raw materials have been set up for the purpose, has been stated. It has been reiterated that the present ROB and RUB at LC-95 has been launched after planning it in depth and at the highest level. It has been averred that Suratgarh is an important railway link of the train traffic and therefore, the railway crossing involved has virtually divided the town into two parts with huge conglomeration of population on both sides. While disputing the various factual 5 aspects as sought to be highlighted by the petitioner and contending that the assertions made in the petition are self- contradictory, the answering respondent has pleaded that the plans and designs have been prepared and finalized by the best experts in the country and that the possibility of an alternative to these per se would not justify judicial intervention at the present advanced stage of execution of the works. The respondent has maintained that serious efforts have been made with the help of the best experts by using most modern technology at a viable cost to conceive and execute the project. According to the answering respondent, third leg, as suggested by the petitioner, is of no use, as the two portions of the town are well connected as per the project in hand. It has been clarified that third leg would connect to Ganganagar bye-pass which has already been connected by a four lane road from Chetak Circle to Radhaswami Satsang Bhawan to Manaksar on Ganganagar road. The respondent has insisted that road over bridge would cater to the need of joining the two parts of the town. It has been asserted as well that before Chetak Circle the third leg of so proposed ROB would meet three railway crossings, which are C-94, 1-C and C-95 resulting in the increase of the length of such third leg much beyond the control of the traffic management rendering the area accident prone. That the same would ensue in escalation of cost and magnitude of the project manifold, has been asserted as well.
6
The respondents no.1, 2, 6, 8 and 9 have also laid a status report of the work of the ROB as on 15.7.2013, which indicates that the construction work has started way back in June, 2012 and that as on date, as certified by IRCON International Limited, 60% of the construction work has been completed. A document to this effect has also been brought on record together with the photographs of the project site and the construction raised.
Whereas Mr.Bhoot has insistently argued that the first proposal mooted by the Public Works Department is best suited for the issues sought to be resolved in public interest and therefore, the same should be resorted to even at this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents have emphatically contended to the contrary and have abided by the pleaded stand endorsing the third proposal.
We have carefully considered the materials on record and have extended our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced.
A perusal of the order dated 27.1.2012 rejecting the petitioner's representation following an elaborate hearing in which the representatives of the Samiti were present, in clear terms demonstrates that in details all the three proposals were exhaustively examined and merits and demerits thereof were recorded. While accepting the third proposal, the following reasons were mentioned in support thereof:-
7
"Final Outcome: It was concluded during hearing that this proposal has distinct advantages over the other two proposals of three legged and RIDCOR in terms of cost saving, ease in traffic movement without any compromise, construction feasibility, least disturbance etc., in light of present scenario of proposed construction of ROB at LC No.01A at Bye-pass.
After detailed deliberations on various alternatives it was decided by the GoR that construction of RoB in straight line from Badopal road to Byepass Road (going to Pratap Plaza) is best suitable alignment over various alternatives including proposal of 3 legged ROB as proposed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Chauk over Bridge Nirman Sanghrsh Samiti, Suratgarh and original proposal of RIDCOR & Municipal Board which connects Suratgarh town to Rawatsar town and new proposal from the city level authorities after detailed site inspection & discussions with all stake holders and considering that it has advantages over the other alternatives proposals (i.e. proposal of 3 legged ROB as proposed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Chauk over Bridge Nirman Sanghrsh Samiti, Suratgarh and original RIDCOR & Municipal Board proposal which connects Suratgarh town to Rawatsar town) in terms of cost saving, ease in traffic movement without any compromise, construction feasiblity, least disturbance etc. in light of present scenario of proposed construction of ROB at LC No.01A at Bye-pass."
It would be apparent from the text of the above quote that the third proposal was ratified amongst others on the determinants of (a) cost; (b) ease in traffic movement without any compromise;
(c) construction feasibility; and (d) least disturbance. As the order would further reveal, the hearing was attended by the Chief 8 Engineer, RUIDP, Chairman & EO Nagar Palika, Suratgarh, Executive Engineer, PWD Suratgarh, representatives from IRCON and Chairman of the Samiti. The petitioner, to reiterate, has introduced himself to be a journalist and a social worker. There is nothing on record to unimpeachably demonstrate that he has expertise on the technical aspects relatable to the project under execution. The very fact that high ranking officials of the PWD, the architects of the first proposal were present in the meeting and had concurred with the ultimate conclusion favouring the third proposal, is definitely significant and decisive vis-a-vis the petitioner's contention that the first proposal ought to have been accepted compared to third proposal. There is nothing to doubt that 60% of the works on the basis of the third proposal as on date has been completed signifying investment of considerable public time and State revenue. The respondent no.7 has provided adequate justification on the basis of local topography to ratify the third proposal as the best one.
On a cumulative consideration of all above, even assuming that the first proposal could have been a possible alternative, the same ifso facto would not justify, in our opinion, any interference with the on-going public project in hand. We are thus, constrained to reject the instant petition. Ordered accordingly.
(P.K.Lohra)J. (Amitava Roy)CJ. Parmar