Allahabad High Court
Azhar Beg vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 9 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4713-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2109 of 2024 Petitioner :- Azhar Beg Respondent :- State of UP and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishe Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Shri Chandra Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner purportedly in public interest seeking direction to the respondents to construct overbridge at Rankhandi Gate L-69 as approved earlier in place of Bhaila Gate L-70 and construct under pass through Bhaila Gate L-70 situated at Kasba-Deoband, District Saharanpur.
3. Submissions have been made that the respondents had initially decided to construct the overbridge at L-69, however, on account of a political intervention, the location has been changed from L-69 to L-70 and therefore, the respondents be directed to construct the overbridge at L-69.
4. Instructions have been produced by the respondents inter alia indicating that the feasibility of construction of the overbridge has been examined at L-69, L-70 and L-71 and as at L-69, minimum 18 mtrs. width is required for two lane overbridge whereas only 11 mtrs. width is available and on both sides there is dense population and at L-71, the width is less than 10 mtrs. and there is also dense population on both sides and on account of the said fact, the overbridge is being constructed at L-70. Along with instructions, reports of the inspection team pertaining to L-69, L-70 and L-71 have been produced by the respondents.
5. Rejoinder has been filed inter-alia indicating that a high tension line is passing above the L-70 location where the overbridge is sought to be constructed and therefore, even L-70 is not feasible.
6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the instructions produced by the respondents.
7. Construction of the railway overbridge or under-pass, essentially is a technical decision, which is required to be taken by the authorities of railway based on their minimum requirements and the situation at the particular location and unless allegations pertaining to mala-fides involved in taking such a decision are made, apparently the said technical decision cannot be interfered with.
8. The allegations made in the petition pertaining to the political interference, are too vague to be examined by this Court as for every decision taken, the allegation about political interference can very well be made, however, unless specific allegation/material pertaining to the benefit/consequence of the said interference is pleaded, the issue cannot be examined.
9. So far as the existence of high tension line at L-70 is concerned, we have no doubt that before/during/on construction of the overbridge, the said aspect would be taken care of by the respondents.
10. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025 nd/piyush (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)