IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Jatinder Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-4431-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-11-2022
NHAI - Writ Petition for Mandamus for Underpass Access - NHAI Act, 1956, Section 2(3) - The court discussed the representations made by the residents of the village for an underpass access, the feasibility reports prepared by NHAI, and the legal principles governing the NHAI's decision-making process. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of infrastructure projects and the expertise of NHAI in highway development and maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The residents of village Sahnewal Khurd filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct NHAI to provide an underpass access for their village, which was divided by the National Highway due to construction work. They argued that the existing underpasses were not feasible for their daily commute, and NHAI had suppressed material facts in their response.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that NHAI had considered the representations and prepared feasibility reports, concluding that providing an additional underpass at the demanded location was not feasible. The court emphasized the expertise of NHAI in highway development and maintenance and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
Issues: The main issue was whether NHAI was obligated to provide an underpass access for the residents of village Sahnewal Khurd, considering the division caused by the National Highway construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that NHAI's decision-making process, based on feasibility reports and expert opinions, should not be ordinarily interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found that no vested legal or fundamental right of the petitioners had been violated, as NHAI's decision was based on technical feasibility and public interest.
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents - NHAI to provide an underpass access (hereinafter referred to as UPA) for ingress and egress for the residents of village Sahnewal Khurd which is situated on both sides of the National Highway No.1 and that similar UPAs' have already been provided to other villages namely Nandpur, Rajgarh and Kanech.
2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the case are that the petitioners who are residents of village Sahnewal Khurd, have approached this Court contending that the respondent - NHAI has undertaken the work of widening of the National Highways and accordingly, the bridges and flyovers have been constructed. The village of the petitioners i.e. Sahnewal Khurd is situated between the towns Sahnewal and Doraha of District Ludhiana on NH-1. As a result of the bridges/flyover constructed, the abadi of village Sahnewal Khurd is now divided on both sides of the National Highway. Resultantly, people have to travel on either sides of the Highway on daily basis. He contends that there is a continuous flow of traffic on the main highway whereas slow carriage way is required to be used by the residents of the village and in the absence of any access to go to the other side, the residents are inclined to crossover the highway and thus, endangering their lives and that of the commuters as well.
3. It is further averred that one vehicular underpass has been provided one kilometer away from the village and that it is difficult for residents to cross the Highway for their everyday routine works. It is further averred that the UPAs have been constructed by the NHAI for inhabitants of village Rajgarh, Kanech and Bilga. The footover bridge was also constructed to approach the Gurudwara Attar Sahib on the G.T. Road towards the side of Doraha, however, the said footover bridge is neither feasible nor practicable since old age persons cannot use the footover bridge for reaching on the other side. Various other aspects highlighting the difficulties faced by the residents were also referred.
4. Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 and 4 - NHAI have also been filed on 12.7.2017, however, no rejoinder to the said written statement has been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has reiterated the averments contained in the writ petition and submits that the NHAI was required to consider the hardships and difficulties faced by the residents of village Sahnewal Khurd and to provide an UPA access for the residents of the adjacent villages. He further contends that the foot over bridge is neither a feasible nor practical remedy for approach by the residents of the villages who have to now travel one kilometer away to reach on the other side since the village abadi has now been bifurcated on both sides of the National Highway and people would have to commute on either side on daily basis.
6. Per contra, the respondents - NHAI has submitted in its response as under:-
'2. That at the very outset, it is submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands as petitioners have suppressed true and material facts which are essential for the just and proper decision of the matter in question. It is relevant to mention here that the residents of Sahnewal Khurd had earlier made similar representations, addressed to then Chairman, NHAI, Sh. C.P. Joshi requesting for construction of a VUP at km 299+950. In this regard, office of independent Engineer had submitted the report vide letter no BQ234/IC-PJ/NH-1/AMB/2012/4879 dated 19.05.2012, wherein it was stated that construction of additional VUP at 299.50 is not technically feasible, keeping in view, the already existing/proposed 7 number of structures i.e. flyover,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in matters of infrastructure projects, emphasizing the expertise of NHAI in highway development and maintenanc....
The court upheld that existing infrastructure suffices for public needs, and expert body decisions in technical matters should not be interfered with by courts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.