Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yelavarthi Srinivasa Rao vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.25830 of 2020
ORDER:
M/s. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), with a view to
regulate the national highway traffic from Chennai to Kolkata, in
Vijayawada had proposed construction of a total of 14 lanes, viz., 6
lanes on the flyover, 4 lanes on the main carriageway and 2 lanes on
the carriageway of service road. The 6 lanes of flyover would consist of
3 lanes of flyover on the eastern side and 3 lanes of parallel flyover on
the western side. These flyovers would cover three junctions, viz., Benz
Circle Junction, Nirmala Convent Junction and Ramesh Flyover
Junction. The flyover on the eastern side has been completed and the
same is in use. The flyover on the western side is now under
construction. The petitioners, who are residents of this area, have now
filed the present writ petition for the following directions to M/s.
National Highways Authority of India.
"(1) to form a service road on the western side of the
2nd flyover with a width of 10 mtrs., vide guideline
No.2.12.2.1 of manual specifications and standards.
(2) directing to form an underpass in continuation of the
existing Fakeergudem underpass at a width of 18 mtrs.,
or in the alternative to form a 4 lane junction at that
place."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, when the flyover on
the eastern side was constructed, an underpass had been created at
Fakeergudem Junction. A writ petition bearing W.P.No.19887 of 2019
was filed for the purpose of forming the service road on the eastern
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.25830 of 2020
side with a width of 10 mtrs., and this Court by order dated 31.12.2019
had directed the 6th respondent to form a service road in accordance
with the standards of 4 lane highways. However, the corresponding
underpass on the flyover, on the western side, is not being created.
The petitioners contend that this would result in huge dislocation of
traffic and inconvenience to the residents of the area. As the
respondents are not willing to look into this issue, the petitioners have
approached this Court.
3. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is
stated in the said counter affidavit that there is a difference between
the construction of western side flyover and the eastern side flyover.
He submits that the Fakeergudem Junction is at Ch.0+438 where the
flyover starts its approach at Ch.0+400. In the said circumstances, an
underpass cannot be constructed at Fakeergudem Junction under the
flyover on the western side. The 6th respondent would also submit that
against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19887
of 2019 a writ appeal being W.A.No.401 of 2020 has been preferred
and an interim suspension of the order of the learned Single Judge has
been granted by the Division Bench. It is submitted that the said
W.A.No.401 of 2020 is still pending before this Court.
4. The 6th respondent also submits that upon completion of
the flyover on the eastern side, there has been a huge reduction in
traffic at the 3 junctions and that on construction of the flyover on the
western side there would be further reduction of traffic congestion. In
the circumstances, the design proposed by the NHAI cannot be faulted.
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.25830 of 2020
5. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the contention of NHAI that there is no possibility of
construction of underpass at Fakeergudem Junction under the western
side flyover, is not correct. He would submit that when an underpass
could be created on the eastern side, the contention of the 6th
respondent that an underpass cannot be created on the western side
flyover cannot be accepted.
6. Sri S.S. Varma, learned counsel for NHAI would submit
that even though any underpass that could have been created under
the western side flyover, will be in line with the under pass that is
requested to be constructed under the eastern side flyover. The same
is not possible due to the fact that the proposed western side flyover is
designed in such a manner that there would not be sufficient height to
create such an underpass.
7. M/s. NHAI, is a technical body with huge experience in the
construction of roads and flyovers. In such technical matters, the view
of M/s. NHAI should be accepted and it would not be appropriate for
the Courts to step into these issues.
8. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
9th March, 2021
Js.
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.25830 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.25830 of 2020
9th March, 2021
Js.
