Point of Law: Other principle that has been ingrained is that if a project is beneficial for the larger public, inconvenience to smaller number of people is to be accepted. It has to be respectfully accepted as a proposition of law that individual interest or, for that matter, smaller public interest must yield to the larger public interest. Inconvenience of some should be bypassed for a larger interest or cause of the society. But, a pregnant one, the present case really does not fall within the four corners of that principle. It is not a case of the land oustees. It is not a case of some inconvenience. It is not comparable to the loss caused to property

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, these petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following reliefs :-

“7(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the detailed representation of the petitioners and take prompt and necessary action following the claim made by the petitioners as regards compensation, rehabilitation, provisions of alternative work place and other prayers made in the representation.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute an independent committee including the representative of the affected persons (citizens) as members of the committee to decide and redress the grievance of the petitioners.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to submit the report as to what action is being taken by the respondents pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners.

(D) To pass such other and further order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are dealing in different types of business respectively and since about 40 years they are carrying on their earning activity from the premises which are situated at Shahpur area, Ahmedabad, and Metro Rail Track is passing through the road called Shahpur main road and the shops of the petitioners are located at this road. On account of the work of Metro Rail Track as well as junction, a construction is being put at the said place and for that purpose, excavation work to the extent of approximately 30 meters deep and 100 feet broad is being done with heavy machines and drillers practically the work is going on at night. According to the petitioners, this work has created tremendous pollution and the vehicle fumes are damaging the health of the shop occupies and the visitors as well. On account of this work being undertaken in the area, business of the petitioners have been considerably reduced almost to the extent of 30-40% as the customers on account of this disruption in the smooth road are not inclined to visit the shops.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioners that in addition to the shops, even petrol pump which is being run by one Mr. Shrenik Jhaveri, the same is also unable to do the business since heavy transport vehicle in the form of tempo/truck is not possible to be moved freely, and business of Mr. Shernik Jhaveri has been badly affected. By giving example about individual petitioners, precisely, petitioner no. 12 and petitioner no. 14 and thereafter submitted that large quantity of dust has polluted the entire area which has practically become impossible for the petitioners to carry on the business. By projecting these hardships, for a pretty long period of two years, the petitioners have made a written representations before the authority including the personal visit to the authorities on 26.12.2018 at Karmayogi Bhavan at Gandhinagar and pointed out the hardships and some of the petitioners who are present were told by the officers concerned that there are no specific rules or law which may provide for any compensation or the alternative work or any sort of rehabilitation since the work is not at the place where the petitioners are situated. It is further the case of the petitioners that this work of excavation, drilling and construction of Metro Rail and its station though has tremendously adversely affected, but the authority has chosen not to consider the case of the petitioners and except just sending the details to one NGO named as SAATH. It is further the case of the petitioners that practically at every authority level the petitioners have represen