JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:— From one angle in this case there is much ado about nothing, from another point of view there is a great deal than that meets the eye. It is better, however, to proceed to deal with the matter as far as eye can see without telescope but also without blinkers. The facts are few - the issues in controversy are fewer still - the directions given by the High Court in this case which are under challenge are brief but their consequences are of some relevance and importance on the. question of ambit of judicial power over administrative inaction. To the facts first, therefore, in imitation of the inimitable style of Lord Denning. This petition for special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 20th August, 1984. Respondents 1 to 15 herein, who claimed to be poor and mostly Harijans and are residents of villages Bhainkhal, Baladi and Bhukho, Tehsil and district Simla in Himachal Pradesh, addressed a letter on or about 4th June, 1984 to the Honble Chief Justice of the said High Court, complaining, inter alia, that (i) in 1972, the State Government had sanctioned the construction of Road known as Channa Haiti-Bhukho Road, (ii) by about August, 1980 half the portion of the road i.e. about 3 Kms. had been constructed and that when the road had reached the village Gharog, the residents of the village obstructed further construction, (iii) the Government initiated compulsory acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands belonging to the villagers of Gharog village and the same were finally acquired in 1982. The villagers of Gharog who were disinterested in further construction of the road in collusion with the authorities got the construction stopped at that stage.

2. It was alleged that after the construction had been made up to the village Gharog, 200/250 metre portion of the road had to be constructed through a privately owned piece of barren land belonging to two families. As the road had reached up to their village, they objected to further construction of the road and also obtained stay orders from the Court. The compulsory acquisition proceedings had been taken by the Government in 1980 and the land was acquired by it in 1982.

3. But the grievances of the said respondents were that, in collusion with the authorities, the said two families of village Gharog along with other residents of the village who were no longer interested in the further construction of the road, got the construction work stopped. Work had been thereafter resumed, it was further alleged, once or twice in a half-hearted manner but the residents of the aforesaid village reached the place of work in protest and got the work stopped again. Though the land was government land, the construction had been, according to the said respondents, completely abandoned.

4. The said respondents alleged that they had been totally deprived of the road facility till then. They alleged that they had to go to city after negotiating a steep ascent of 4/5 miles and by carrying load worth maunds on their shoulders. Only after such a strenuous effort, it was their allegation, that they were able to establish contacts with the city. They asserted that democracy was meaningless to them. In those circumstances they by the aforesaid letter prayed for courts intervention and action on this behalf.

5. After receiving the letter on 22nd June, 1984, the letter was treated by the High Court as a Writ Petition and the State Government filed its reply to the same stating, inter alia, that on 29th July, 1977 the Government had sanctioned construction of the said road for a total expenditure of Rs. 4,99,000/-. The total length of the road was about 5 Kms.; construction work started immediately in 1977 and most part of the road including widening at various places had been constructed till 1984 on a total expenditure of Rs. 2,99,216/-; when the construction of the