Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Union Of India Through National Highway ... on 6 March, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 6288 of 2016
-------
Vijay Kumar, S/o Sri Harihar Yadav, R/o Tetulia, P.O. Sonardih, P.S. Madhuban, District-Dhanbad, Jhakhand. ......Petitioner Versus
1. Union of India through National Highway Authority of India represented by the Project Director, NHI-32, having its office at Bhitia, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District-Dhanbad.
2. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, NHI-32, Union of India having its office at Bhitia, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad.
3. The State of Jharkhand through Road Construction Department, represented by its Secretary, Road Construction Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
4. Secretary, Road construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
5. Chief Engineer, Road construction Department, Road Division, Dhanbad having his office at P.O. & District-Dhanbad.
6. Director General of Mines Safety having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. P.S. and District-Dhanbad.
7. Director, Central Institute of Mining for Research (CIMFR) having its head office at Dhanbad, P.O. P.S.and District-Dhanbad.
8. Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s BCCL having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Seraidhela, P.O. & P.S. Seraidheela, District- Dhanbad.
9. Land Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. P.S. and District-Dhanbad.
10. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.
.....Respondents
------
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondents-State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C. III
: Mr. Sandeep Verma, AC to Sr. S.C. III
For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, DSGI
: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to DSGI
For the NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate
: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate
For the BCCL : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
For the CIMFR : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
--------
21/6.3.2024 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the BCCL, Mrs. Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India and Mr. Abhay -2- Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the Central Institute of Mining for Research (CIMFR).
2. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has made the following prayers:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith send to this Hon'ble Court all the records appertaining to the construction of NH-32 from Rajganj through Katras through Mahuda More to Chas i.e. 24 K.M. and also as to how 12 K.M. of the same on the basis of widening of the said NH-32 is to be constructed from Katras to Lohapiti section, which is to be done on the lands under which huge fire is already prevailing and under which there are great huge amount of coal lying which shall be excavated in near future.
AND
(ii) For a further direction to the respondents to consider imminent danger and loss of life and property of the nation, State and its citizens by construction of diversion of NH-32 on the basis of widening the same over an area i.e. from Katras to Lohapiti section under which there is a huge fire prevailing and huge amount of coal is lying and thereafter on being satisfied to immediately and forthwith stop the same, in view of the fact that it is not feasible nor in the interest of nation nor in the interest of the people at large, on the other hand it is because of danger of life and property of the citizens and country AND
(iii) For a further direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith stop the acquisition of the land over which the same is to be constructed.
3. Today, it has been submitted by Mrs. Sweety Topno, learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India that the road with respect to which the Public Interest Litigation was filed has already been constructed and considering the report of CIMFR, the constructed road has been diverted in view of the instability pointed out by CIMFR to the road which was to be constructed by the National Highways Authority of India.
-3-4. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for CIMFR has submitted before us the expert opinion regarding two/four laning with paved shoulders of Govindpur ( Rajganj)-Chas-West Bengal Border section of NH- 32 from KM 0.000 to KM 56.889 which is dated 11.3.2020. The conclusion and recommendation of the report of the CIMFR reads as follows:-
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATOIN This is to state that the dimensions are as per the plan and data provided by the mine management. However, the present dimensions and conditions of workings are not known owing to inaccessibility. The following conclusions are emerged on the basis of scientific studies as mentioned above.
1. The safety factor for the minimum size of stooks in working area of XA (Bottom) seam lying in between A and M9 was 1.9(Table 1).
The safety factor of split pillars of working area of X (Bottom) seam lying in between A to M5 ( for minimum size of split pillars) and M4 to M2 was 1.62 and 1.58 respectively(Table 1). Such areas are having safety factor less than 2 and hence such locations of NH- 32 may not be considered stable for long term point of view.
2. The safety factors of pillars in working areas ( between A10 and A
12) of XI seam below the D.C. Railway line is less than 2 for minimum size of the pillar ( Table 2) which is not suitable for the long term stability.
3. Potentiality of pot-hole may not be overlooked to the areas where workings are less than 50 m depth.
4. Fire exists in north and south side of railway line. Its extent and severity cannot be judged from the current limited investigation results obtained from only four available boreholes. To arrive at a definite conclusion, rigorous investigation in north and south side of railway line with at least 8-10 boreholes on each side is imperative. The location of these boreholes is to be strategically fixed and marked on the plan.
5. So far as NH-32 road is concerned, smoke was noticed at Miya Basti at a distance of 85 m from the road on the south side of railway line. As such no investigations could be carried out as no borehole was available there.
5. Certain frailties were pointed out by the CIMFR with respect to the construction of road which was to be undertaken and considering the report the road which has been constructed is on a diverted path as per the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India. It has also been submitted that the road has now been fully functional and therefore the Public Interest Litigation which had been filed has lots its purpose.
-4-6. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we accordingly dispose of this Public Interest Litigation.
7. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-