Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Abhay Manohar Sapre, C.J. and A.K.GOSWAMI, J.
Shri Taniang Kipa
Vs.
The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India and Ors.
P.I.L. No. 6 of 2013
Decided On: 12.03.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. H. Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Randip Sharma, Ld. A.S.G.I., Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, Adv. for A.A.I. and Ms. M. Bora, G.A., Arunachal Pradesh
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226/227 - Resident of village District - Seeking to Shifting of site for construction of Airport project - According to petitioner, firstly decision having rightly been taken by State in first instance to set up an Airport at a place "Karsingsa/Banderdewa", there was neither any need nor an occasion for shifting Airport site to other place at "Hollongi" thereby changing earlier decision, secondly decision to shift is irrational, arbitrary and not conceived in public interest - Thirdly: it is taken to extend benefit to persons in power so that they are able to get some kind of monetary consideration - Fourthly construction of Airport at new site would cause more burden in terms of investment as compared to its original cost on earlier site selected and hence it is bad - It is inter alia averred that decision to shift Airport site was taken after intense deliberation inter se all agencies involved in decision making process and was therefore conceived in best public interest and stakeholders - It was, according to respondent based on full application of mind by all the competent authorities including experts who after examining all pros and cons, approved alternative site - It was also contended that petitioner - A single so-called aggrieved has no social background, he has come to the court with some oblique motive either for his benefit or for someone else – Held, committee, which consisted of experts from Civil Aviation Ministry, was conscious of work assigned - Fifthly: it seems clear by reading the report that new site in all respect, i.e. safety, convenience and cost factor is better than the previous one - Learned counsel for petitioner however argued that decision to shift airport was taken to extend undue benefit to few persons in power - He contended that due to change in site, few individuals in power are likely to be benefited in terms of money because now State will have to pay money to them by way of compensation - In other words, submission was that decision to shift was more for benefit of few persons in power rather than for the benefit of public - Petitioner did not place any factual details and evidence on this issue - Secondly, he did not implead any such persons in the petition - In absence of material pleadings and necessary parties, it is not possible for this court to make any factual inquiry on this issue, which is based on legal and factual malice - It is apart from fact that no such comments was made by committee in their report - Petition stands accordingly disposed of.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, C.J.
1. This is a petition filed by one Shri Taniang Kipa claiming to be the resident of Karsingsa village District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court relating to PIL (Public Interest Litigation) against the State and its authorities in relation to the subject matter of the writ petition. In substance, the grievance of the writ petitioner is against the decision of the State in shifting of site for construction of Airport project known as "Greenfield Airport Project" from a site/place called "Karsingsa/Banderdewa at Itanagar" to another place called "Hollongi".
2. According to the petitioner, firstly: the decision having rightly been taken by the State in the first instance to set up an Airport at a place "Karsingsa/Banderdewa", there was neither any need nor an occasion for shifting the Airport site to other place at "Hollongi" thereby changing the earlier decision, secondly: the decision to shift is irrational, arbitrary and not conceived in the public interest, thirdly: it is taken to extend benefit to persons in power so that they are able to get some kind of monetary consideration, fourthly: construction of Airport at new site would cause more burden in terms of investment as compared to its original cost on the earlier site selected and hence it is bad. These were essentially the grounds on which the decision to shift the site for construction of the Airport from original site is assailed in this PIL.
3. On notice being issued to the respondents, i.e. Union of India, the Civil Aviation Ministry, its authorities and the State authorities, returns are filed denying therein all the allegations made in the writ petition being totally baseless and without any material. The respondents have given reasons in support of their decision to shift the site from "Karsingsa/Banderdewa" to "Hollongi".
4. It is inter alia averred that the decision to shift the Airport site was taken after intense deliberation inter se all agencies involved in the decision making process and was therefore conceived in the best public interest and the stakeholders. It was, according to the respondents, based on full application of mind by all the competent authorities including experts, who, after examining all the pros and cons, approved the alternative site.
5. The respondents filed entire correspondence to show as to how and in what manner, the decision was taken to justify its reasonability, fairness and rationality. It was also contended that the petitioner - a single so-called aggrieved has no social background, he has come to the court with some oblique motive either for his benefit or for someone else. It was contended that no group of persons, social organization etc. have challenged the decision of shifting. It was also contended that the very fact that petitioner has not challenged the decision to set up an Airport is enough to dismiss the writ petition because the question as to whether Airport is to be constructed at "A" place or "B" place is not for any individual to decide and more so, who has no expertise in the subject, but it is for the experts in the field to decide. It is essentially on these grounds, the petition is opposed.
6. This court entertained the writ petition and passed various interim orders from time to time including the order directing all the parties to maintain "status quo" in relation to the site till further order.
7. This court, then, with a view to find out as to whether the decision to shift the Airport was just and in the interest of public at large, by order dated 30.8.2013, appointed a high power committee consisting of four members headed by a retired High Court Judge and three experts in the field to probe.
8. Following was the constitution of the committee:
(i) Justice A.C. Upadhyay (Retired) .... Chairman
(ii) Director of Civil Aviation .... Member
(iii) Joint Secretary, Home, North
