Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. C. SAKSENA, A. N. GUPTA
NISHATGANJ VYAPAR MANDAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 1241 Of 1993
Decided On : 05/18/1993
FLYOVER CONSTRUCTION - PUBLIC SAFETY - INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT, 1890 - SECTIONS 16 TO 19 - CONSTRUCTION OF FLYOVER AND WALLS NEAR RAILWAY TRACK - PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RIGHT TO LIFE AND ENVIRONMENT - LOCUS STANDI OF PETITIONER VYAPAR MANDAL - REPRESENTATION AND GRIEVANCES - NATURAL JUSTICE - MALA FIDE OR ARBITRARINESS - COMPENSATION OR ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR BUSINESSES - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Vyapar Mandal challenged the construction of a flyover and walls near a railway track in Nishatganj, Lucknow, claiming it would affect their business and violate public safety. The flyover was planned to address traffic congestion and improve public convenience. The petitioner argued that the construction violated their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and sought compensation or alternative sites for their businesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the construction of the flyover and walls was justified in the interest of public safety and convenience. It interpreted Section 19 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, to include public convenience within the ambit of "public safety." The court found no mala fide or arbitrariness in the decision-making process and held that the petitioner's representation was duly considered. It also rejected the petitioner's claim for compensation or alternative sites, as no acquisition or eviction was involved.
Issues: 1. Whether the construction of the flyover and walls violated public safety and convenience. 2. Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the construction. 3. Whether the petitioner's representation was duly considered and principles of natural justice were followed. 4. Whether the construction violated the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation or alternative sites for their businesses.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 19 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, to include public convenience within the ambit of "public safety." It held that the construction of the flyover and walls was justified in the interest of public safety and convenience. 2. The court found that the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the construction as their grievances were directly affected by the project. 3. The court held that the petitioner's representation was duly considered and principles of natural justice were followed, as the authorities took into account the petitioner's concerns while designing and approving the project. 4. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that the construction violated their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as it found no evidence that the project would significantly impair their quality of life or living environment. 5. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation or alternative sites for their businesses, as no acquisition or eviction was involved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, finding no merit in their claims and holding that the construction of the flyover and walls was justified in the interest of public safety and convenience.
( 1 ) COUNTER affidavit on behalf of opposite parties except opposite party No. 6 Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow have been filed. Rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. As pleadings were complete, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was taken up for final hearing. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
( 2 ) THE petitioner by means of this writ petitition have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to construct the flyover in question in the Nishatgang Area in the city of Lucknow. A further writ of mandamus has been prayed for requiring the opposite parties not to construct any wall near the railway track at gate No. 4 in the Nishatganj area. By way of consequential relief, further writ of mandamus has been prayed for commanding the opposite parties to allow movement of vehicles in the Nishat-gang area and to pay compensation/damages to the affected persons of the locality due to the construction of the flyover.
( 3 ) THE petitioners case is that railway line of N. E. Railway passes through Badshah Nagar Railway station to Charbagh through Nishatganj. A proposal to construct over-bridge in main Nishatganj area has been finalised. The opposite parties, in their counter affidavit have filed the relevant lay-out plan of the over bridge at crossing No. 4. The writ petition was filed on the basis of an assumption that the Hanuman Mandir standing on the Nishatganj crossing is likely to be damaged and affected by the construction of the flyover. Various pleas have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Foremost of them being that the flyover is being constructed without deciding the petitioners representation. It is submitted that the flyover is being constructed in violation of human needs and against the welfare of the residents of the locality i. e. Nishatgang area. It is alleged that the flyover is being constructed in a way that it will affect human health, wealth and property and basic human needs as there would be no passage of ambulance and fire-brigade etc. The main grievance of the petitioner centres around the construction of a wall covering railway line at gate No. 4 at Nishatgang crossing and providing for a subway for pedestrians and cyclists to cross over to the other side. The other ground urged is that the object for which the flyover is being consructed, such as traffic jam, would not be solved but would be worsened due to construction of wall at gate No. 4.
( 4 ) ON behalf of opposite parties, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner Vyapar Mandal to file writ petition. It has been stated that the Nishatgang flyover is being constructed under policy decision of the State Government as well as the Central Government, considering the critical condition in controlling heavy traffic in the densily populated Nishatganj area and considering general demand of the public who was facing trouble every day due to traffic jams in said area. It is submitted that a high level committee consisting of expert engineers as well as higher authorities of the State and Central Governments was constituted and thereafter the plan was sanctioned and approved after thorough survey and inspection of the area in question and taking into consideration the requirements and facilities and also the proposals of the citizens of the locality including the Vyapar Mandal. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the construction work of flyover has been started in January 1993 and is ns ns now in speedy progress and six piers and retaining walls have already been constructed. Photographs of the construction have also been filed. It has been stated that huge investment has already been made in respect of the construction of the flyover. The constructions have been allowed to be executed by the U. P. State Bridge Corporation and it is required to be completed within the year 1994. In the counter aff
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
