SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1736

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Amitava Roy, Veerendr Singh Siradhana, JJ.
Mool Chand Kumawat & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority of India & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. PIL Petition No. 3754 & 3753 of 2013.
Decided On : 06-09-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Anoop Dhand, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M.D. Agarwal, Advocate.

The court will not intervene in the construction of highways and bridges unless there is a clear violation of law or public interest.

Headnote:

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERPASS AND DIVIDER/CUT - NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 11 - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 - SUMMARY : Petitioners sought direction to construct one underpass at Neem Nagar Railway Over Bridge and one underpass & one divider/cut at Trilokpura, District Sikar situated at National Highway No. 11. NHAI stated that the underpass is not required as the traffic count is low and provided an opening for pedestrians and two-wheelers. The court held that it is not inclined to intervene as the projects have been conceptualized to meet the locational requirements and public interest and the petitioners can submit representations to the concerned respondents.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought direction to construct one underpass at Neem Nagar Railway Over Bridge and one underpass & one divider/cut at Trilokpura, District Sikar situated at National Highway No. 11. NHAI stated that the underpass is not required as the traffic count is low and provided an opening for pedestrians and two-wheelers.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that it is not inclined to intervene as the projects have been conceptualized to meet the locational requirements and public interest and the petitioners can submit representations to the concerned respondents.

Issues: Whether the construction of underpass and divider/cut at Neem Nagar Railway Over Bridge and Trilokpura, District Sikar situated at National Highway No. 11 is required.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is not inclined to intervene as the projects have been conceptualized to meet the locational requirements and public interest and the petitioners can submit representations to the concerned respondents.

Final Decision: Petitions Closed.

JUDGMENT

1. - Both these petitions presented as public interest litigation seek direction to the respondents to construct one underpass at Neem Nagar Railway Over Bridge (Reengus), District Sikar situated at National Highway No. 11 and one underpass & one divider/cut at Trilokpura, District Sikar situated at National Highway No. 11.Facts in CWP-3753/2013

2. The petitioner-Samiti claimed that the population of the village Trilokpura, District Sikar is around 50,000. The respondents are constructing four lane road at National Highway No. 11 but in doing so they have not made any provision of a single under pass for the residents of this village and other adjacent villages. It has been asserted that on both sides of the proposed four lane highway, there are many educational institutions, where thousands of students are studying and cross the highway from both sides. Due to extension of Highway road into four lane, the respondents are constructing the road of about one and a half kms. at 15 feet height, but, they are not constructing even a single underpass under it, while at least one underpass and one cut are required looking to the population of the nearby areas and its traffic. That at NH-11, while there are many road crossings from Trilokpura to other villages like, Sujawas, Sherpura, Maksudpura, has been mentioned as well. Besides, there are many banks, post office, hospitals etc. situated on the southern side of the Highway. It is contended that while the respondents have not provided even one underpass and one divider/cut, they have provided two underpasses in the vicinity of Village Goriya, where the population is hardly 10% of that of Trilokpura, District Sikar. That several representations have been submitted by the villagers and others before the authorities of the NHAI', but the same have remained unheeded, has been mentioned as well.

3. The respondent No. 2, in the reply, has stated that Ch. (300 + 364) is not for the village Trilokpura and, in fact, the Ch. of Village Trilokpura is about 31 kms. away from the main chainage. The elaboration in its pleadings in this regard is extracted herein below:

"4.(ii)........The true and correct facts are that the Ch referred as (300 + 364) is not for village Trilokpura. Infact the ch. of village Trilokpura is (300 + 960) which is nearly 30 km. away from the mentioned chainage. A one day Traffic/Origin-Destination survey was conducted at Ch: 330 + 980 and results are tabulated at Annexure-1. It can be seen from the Traffic Survey report that PCU count of the traffic requiring passing of NH at these junction is far below the requirement. Presently at this location PCU count is only 608 for traffic going from Trilokpura to Reengus and 578.50 for traffic going to Sikar from Trilokpura. Both these directional movement of traffic will require crossing of National Highway through the median cut provided at Ch: 330 + 920. However to cater the needs of the residents of Trilokpura and its hamlets a junction with a median opening is considered sufficient. Railway have provided an underpass below the Railway Track since the existing Railway Track is at very high level and crossing over of railway track is not allowed which is contrary to Highway condition. It is also respectfully submitted that construction of underpass is decided after detail study of traffic data collected from detail survey by "Detailed Project Report Consultant and accordingly included in bid document. The average height of Embankment at this location is 1.2 mtr. and not 5 mtr. As alleged by the Petitioner. However, the embankment criteria at this location is governed by the approaches to the succeeding Major bridge at Ch: 331 + 427.500 towards Sikar which is very close by. Since RHS of the old Major Bridge is retained as per the provision of Concession Agreement the height of embankment cannot be raised for accommodating any VUP/PUP at this change. However looking at this specific location and needs of local public an op















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top