Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He, therefore, prayed that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under public interest and issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent to preserve Hope Bridge as an ancient monument.

IV.

Submissions of respondent no.2 - Surat Municipal Corporation :

Learned counsel Mr.Prashant G.Desai appearing for the Corporation submitted that the decision of the Corporation to dismantle 134-year old Hope Bridge is in the nature of a policy decision and administrative in nature. He submitted that as such there is no public interest involved so far as the decision to dismantle the Bridge is concerned. He submitted that after taking into consideration all relevant aspects and more particularly the opinion of expert bodies like SVNIT, Surat, the Corporation finally took decision to dismantle the Bridge, for which tender came to be floated and has been finalized too. He submitted that Hope Bridge has not been declared so far, as an 'ancient monument' as defined under section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and, therefore, it would not fall within the category of 'protected monument' as defined under section 2(j) of the Act of 1958. He vehemently submitted that judicial review is no method of inquiring into the wisdom, expediency or reasonableness of administrative acts. He submitted that this Court should be unwilling to substitute its own decision for that of the responsible authority. He submitted that the Hope Bridge was handed over by the State Government to the Corporation in the year 1972 on certain terms and conditions and the major term was that if the Hope Bridge is in non-use condition, it should be given back to the State Government and in future if the Hope Bridge is not to be used, the income out of the disposal of the said Hope Bridge was to be given to the State Government. He submitted that in the year 1975, in view of flood in River Tapi, on the side of Adajan, two spans were damaged and, therefore, the State Government directed the Corporation for closing the Bridge and dismantle it. He submitted that, however, at that time, there was no other bridge and, therefore, it was decided to strengthen the bridge for light vehicles, and when the new bridge was constructed, the Hope Bridge was opened for pedestrian traffic only and in the year 2000 again it was decided to get the report and the said work was given to Stup Consultancy. Thereupon, the Commissioner addressed a letter to the Secretary, R&B Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, for requesting the State Government to allow the Corporation to take the income of the Hope Bridge for making construction of new bridge.

I submit that since there was suggestion to strengthen the Hope Bridge, the Corporation in the year 2003 has asked the study to be made to STUP Consultant, Mumbai and feasibility report was also prepared which is already annexed in the earlier affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. The STUP Consultant gave report that if new bridge is to be constructed it will cost Rs.1.50 crores, which is in the year 2003. Even thereafter, the Corporation gave work to SVNIT College for making survey and the report was made on 10th October 2011 where it will be dangerous for the public at large if the Hope Bridge is permitted to continue to function as it was in very much dilapidated condition.

I submit that the Surat Municipal Corporation got prepared the draft heritage policy of Central Urban Development Corporation, Delhi, in September 2009 and at that time the suggestion from the Gujarat Urban Development Corporation was also called for. In the said report it was also mentioned that the Hope Bridge is required to be dismantled and demolished.

I submit that the survey is already made by SVNIT and also by STUP Consultant earlier. I submit that the Central Water Power Resources, Pune, has also opined that the Hope Bridge is damaging foundation on Nehru Bridge and, therefore, the Hope Bridge is required to be demolished. I submit that inspite of Sardar Patel, Swami Vivekanand Bridge there is heavy load of traffic on Nehru Bridge and, therefore, new bridge is required to be constructed just by the side of Nehru Bridge and the foundation of Hope Bridge and Nehru Bridge are not similar and there is efflux, where there is a flood there is difference in level of water in respect of both the bridges. I submit that inspite of request made by the Corporation, the Hope Bridge is not being considered as heritage property by the State Government. I submit that even SVNIT was also requested recently to report for condition and assessment of Hope Bridge, and the report was given by the said Institution on 10th October 2011 which was advised that it is advisable to dismantled the bridge for the safety of person and for safety of Nehru Bridge.

I submit that in view of the fact that there are reports from the STUP Consultant as well as SVNIT, after the survey being made by the Professor of SVNIT, which is well-known Engineering Institute, there is no further progress. On the contrary, the Corporation has asked the State Government to give two spans for placing the same somewhere as heritage property, but, the bridge as such will have to be dismantled in view of what is stated earlier in the affidavit-in-reply and in this affidavit also."