Shrenik Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 8091 Guj

     C/SCA/8339/2019                            CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8339 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI sd/-
==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?                                           Yes

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
                                                                      Yes
3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?                                                No

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution              No
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== SHRENIK RASIKBHAI JHAVERI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR SAHIL TRIVEDI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the

MR KAMAL TRIVEDI SR. ADVOCATE with MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for

NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

Date : 09/07/2021

CAV ORDER

1. By way of this petition, these petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

of India for seeking the following reliefs :-

"7(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the detailed representation of the petitioners and take prompt and necessary action following the claim made by the petitioners as regards compensation, rehabilitation, provisions of alternative work place and other prayers made in the representation.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute an independent committee including the representative of the affected persons (citizens) as members of the committee to decide and redress the grievance of the petitioners.

(C ) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to submit the report as to what action is being taken by the respondents pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners.

(D ) To pass such other and further order as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are dealing in different types of business respectively and since about 40 years they are carrying on their earning activity from the premises which are situated at Shahpur area, Ahmedabad, and Metro Rail Track is passing through the road called Shahpur main road and the shops of the petitioners are located at this road. On account of the work of Metro Rail Track as well as junction, a construction is being put at the said place and for that purpose, excavation work to the extent of approximately 30 meters deep and 100 feet broad is being done with heavy machines and drillers practically the work is going on at night. According to the petitioners, this work has created tremendous pollution and the vehicle fumes are damaging the health of the shop occupies and the visitors as well. On account of this

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

work being undertaken in the area, business of the petitioners have been considerably reduced almost to the extent of 30-40% as the customers on account of this disruption in the smooth road are not inclined to visit the shops.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioners that in addition to the shops, even petrol pump which is being run by one Mr. Shrenik Jhaveri, the same is also unable to do the business since heavy transport vehicle in the form of tempo/truck is not possible to be moved freely, and business of Mr. Shernik Jhaveri has been badly affected. By giving example about individual petitioners, precisely, petitioner no. 12 and petitioner no. 14 and thereafter submitted that large quantity of dust has polluted the entire area which has practically become impossible for the petitioners to carry on the business. By projecting these hardships, for a pretty long period of two years, the petitioners have made a written representations before the authority including the personal visit to the authorities on 26.12.2018 at Karmayogi Bhavan at Gandhinagar and pointed out the hardships and some of the petitioners who are present were told by the officers concerned that there are no specific rules or law which may provide for any compensation or the alternative work or any sort of rehabilitation since the work is not at the place where the petitioners are situated. It is further the case of the petitioners that this work of excavation, drilling and construction of Metro Rail and its station though has tremendously adversely affected, but the authority has chosen not to consider the case of the petitioners and except just sending the details to one NGO named as SAATH. It is further the case of the petitioners that practically at every authority level the petitioners have represented, but having not considered the grievance in any form, left with no other remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition for the reliefs which are prayed for in the petition.

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

3. Pursuant to the notice having been issued on 07.05.2019, the pleadings have been completed in the proceedings and it has come up for consideration before this Court on 24.06.2021 and on that day, upon request of both the sides, the matter was taken up for hearing. The petitioners have been represented by learned advocate Mr. Jigar S. Gadhavi, whereas learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi assisted by Mr. Anuj Trivedi, learned advocate appears for respondent nos. 2 and

3.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Jigar Gadhavi has vehemently contended that the petitioners being lawful occupier of the premise in the nearby vicinity where this Metro Rail work is going on have got fundamental rights to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business as provided under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950. On account of this work being undertaken, practically, the petitioners were forced to get their business damaged, which has hampered the business activity and that has violated the fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(g) of the Constitution. It has been contended that whenever any such work of such a magnitude is to be undertaken, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent - State authority to act in a fair and just manner and not act as a power charged authority as if the authorities are not concerned about the well being of shop owners who are directly affected on account of such work. The authorities have not acted in right spirit, precisely, since despite repeated requests and the representations having been made, no attention is paid of any nature. According to learned advocate Mr. Gadhavi, the authorities are under an obligation and rather duty bound to take all measures to see that the petitioners may not be adversely affected. While conducting the activities of this Metro Rail project, the petitioners were not served with any personal notices nor were heard before conducting this activity of excavation and related work place of the petitioners which is badly

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

affected in such a manner that the business practically has been reduced to the extent of 30-40% and tremendous hardship is being caused to run the business and difficult to get the presence of customers/visitors to their shop and thereby producing the relevant photographs, a contention is raised that the authorities have not adhered to any of the request of the petitioners, which has given rise to the filing of this petition. The authorities cannot act in such a manner in which the litigant is to take shelter of this Court for protecting their business and to seek some compensation. No other submissions have been made.

4.1. To substantiate his grievance, learned advocate Mr. Gadhavi has pointed out few photographs which are attached to the affidavit-in- rejoinder and thereby, has requested to mould the reliefs and to give some respite to the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhavi has even placed on record a xerox copy of the Policy of 2007 known as The National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 framed by Ministry of Rural Development (Department of Land Resources) (Land Reforms Division), Resolution dated 31.10.2007 and by referring to such Resolution, a request is made to consider the case. By adverting to the said Policy, some mechanism be provided to resolve the grievance of the petitioners and that having not been done, the action on the part of the respondent - authorities is arbitrary, which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, request be considered as prayed for in para 7(A) at the best.

5. As against this, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi appearing for the respondent - authority has submitted that here is a case in which not only the petitioners any of the fundamental rights are getting violated, nor even any legal right is infringed in any manner and hence, the petition itself is not maintainable. Apart from that maintainability aspect, learned Senior

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi has submitted that for the purpose of implementing the Metro Rail project in between Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad, a Special Purpose Vehicle came to be formed under the name of Metro Link Express From Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad (MEGA) Company Limited, which was subsequently named as "Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation" (hereinafter referred to as "GMRC"). This has been set up for effective implementing of the Ahmedabad Metro Rail Project Phase-I, which, on the contrary, serves two fold purpose ; (i) for providing transportation services to general public at affordable rates ; (ii) for reducing traffic congestion on roads and as such, this Ahmedabad Metro Rail Project comprises of two corridors i.e. East-West corridor of approximately 19.44 km., length with 17 stations and North-South corridor of approximately 18.49 km length with 15 stations and to execute this work, wherever land is required, the authorities are keeping in mind the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 Act"). According to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi, as per the procedure laid down in this Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, a preliminary survey is to be carried out by the surveying agency which is appointed by GMRC. In the said survey, the surveying agency assesses the estimated number of families, who may get affected by Metro Rail Project in a particular area and the said preliminary survey is not conclusive in as much as the persons shown to be affected in the survey may or may not be affected by the project in future as well. So based upon the said survey, the project affected families are called upon to provide various documentary proofs for identification and verification of ownership which is collected to form profile of the persons affected by the Metro Rail Project. Simultaneously, the Surveyor finalizes a survey drawing which lays out the approximate area required for Metro Rail Project and final finalization of the survey

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

drawing, a valuer appointed by GMRC carries out the property valuation and subsequently, thereafter, GMRC negotiates with the persons affected by the acquisition of the property and based upon such negotiations the project affected families are required to fill a consent form, which is followed with a formal agreement executed between GMRC and the project affected families/persons. The said agreement along with the consent terms is submitted tot he Special Land Acquisition Officer for declaration of an award under Section 23A of the 2013 Act and thereafter an award declaring land acquisition is passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

5.1. By referring to this entire procedure learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi has submitted that the Metro Rail construction work has commenced in Shahpur area. It may be that on account of this work of public importance, the petitioners might have been put to some inconvenience for following reasons; (i) put to some inconvenience on account of implanting iron curtains, barricades etc., and for some time the road might have been converted into one way road resulting in some hardship to the traffic, noise pollution etc., but then, on account of same, such inconvenience which always might be taking place when the public work of such a nature is being undertaken. It has been pointed out from the affidavit-in-reply that the present petition is premature since the process of land acquisition in respect of project affected persons is under process and in consonance with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. According to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi from the assertion of affidavit-in-reply of respondent nos. 2 and 3, has contended that as per the survey carried out in the course of time, some of the petitioners themselves till date have not participated in the said activity and rather deliberately delayed even the completion of identification process. Every efforts are being made to see that somehow the work may

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

get delayed and as a last resort, these petitioners have come out with this frivolous petition.

5.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi has submitted that right to trade and profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and it is always subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public at large and here, on the contrary, no restriction of whatsoever nature have been imposed upon the petitioners from stopping or from guaranteed any trade or profession and as such, there is no question of violation of any of the fundamental rights either under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or under Article 14 of it. On the contrary, this Metro Rail Project is for benefit and convenience of the citizens and, therefore, individually hardships cannot prevail over the public interest. The authorities according to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi are carrying on the work in perfectly legal and the temporary inconvenience which is tried to be projected cannot be termed as that much inconvenience which may prompt the petitioners to seek the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. Paramount consideration is to be given to the work of public importance and not the private individual interest. Learned Senior Advocate has thereafter submitted from the affidavit-in-sur- rejoinder that Shahpur Metro Station is an underground station being constructed under the road itself and as such,the authorities have seen to it that minimum private land is sought to be acquired if and when necessary. So on the contrary, the authorities are taking more care of interest of the surrounding people as well as to see that the less minimum damage may take place. Upon survey being under taken, few particulars have been analyzed which has revealed that how many project affected persons are on North-South side of Shahpur station and also persons who have not submitted the details of documents with the authorities, the tabular chart contained in para 4 reflecting on page 107 since brought to the notice of this Court which deserves to be quoted hereunder :-

    C/SCA/8339/2019                                   CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021




                        Status                            Total number
                                                            of PAPs
Number of PAPs that have submitted documents                      30
Number of common structures (school, public toilet,                4
open plot etc.,)
Number of PAPs that have not submitted documents                   7



                        Status                              Number of
                                                              PAPs

Number of PAPs who are yet to be verified including               30
7PAPs who have not submitted their documents till
date

5.2. Even as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, necessary process has already commenced by virtue of issuance of Notification under Section 10 as well as under Section 19 and the said Notifications are already published in local daily newspapers, so much so that an international consultant referred to as General Engineering Consultant has also been appointed by GMRC for supervision, monitoring and reviewing the progress of the work of entire Metro Rail Project, Phase-I which includes this Shahpur area as well. The construction in the said area is being executed by a reputed contractor i.e. M/s. Larson and Toubro Ltd., and as such, the Metro Rail work is being taken in a planned and systematic manner with the aid of efficient instrumentalities and all efforts are being made properly by diverting the traffic keeping in view the safety and best interest of the public at large. Even individual issue is also taken care of and in addition to it, ensured minimal disturbance to the residents of the area. With a view to lessen down general hardship, even the traffic is diverted one way to give clear vehicular access to all the properties of the petitioners. So it is not that the

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

respondent authorities are not concerned about the interest of the petitioners, but then in any case, when the work is being undertaken of such a magnitude, there may be some hardship and it has been clearly pointed out that a detailed design of main station box is completed and there is no private property that would be affected as per the said design. However, the design pertaining to the entry and exit points of the main station box is in final stages and all necessary efforts are being taken to ensure that no private property is affected and according to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi, this was the position prevailing around April, 2020.

5.3. It has been contended specifically that some of the petitioners are aggrieved by such work since petitioner no. 1 whose petrol pump is 5 meters in front of the road, but then, upon request of petitioner no. 1 only, GMRC has removed substantial portion of the compound wall known as H.P. petrol pump to allow the request to suitably access for movement of its fuel tankers for unloading fuel. Similarly, in case of petitioner no. 9 who is running plywood shop, ample space is made available for movement of heavy vehicles as well which can be seen from the photographs attached at Annexure-R5, collectively. On the contrary, from the photographs it has been pointed out that some of the shops or complex owners have extended / encroached the area over and above the road boundary limit, more pertinently, petitioner no. 9 which has also led to shrinkage of the roads and results in hindrances for vehicular movement in the said area. So, it is not on account of the work they are affected like that, but some of the petitioners themselves have created a situation whereby they themselves are facing some issues, but then, this is temporary till the work gets over.

5.4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi has pointed out that Metro Rail Project, Phase-I is progressing in full swing in all the

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

stretches. The design is taken up on priority basis as per the construction sequence and the design of the main box of station is complete and the progress of the work of Shahpur station is nearly 80% completed. However, minor change in the design of the entry and exit structure may take place without impacting the land acquisition plan. In spite of several negotiations at the meeting for Metro affected persons, preliminary work of document submissions is not completed due to reasons solely attributed to the non co-operation of the project affected persons for one reason or the other and non completion of the assessment process is mainly due to that. On the contrary, the grievances are being addressed by GMRC from time to time, which has also appointed M/s. Saath Livelihood Service, an NGO for smooth co-ordination between GMRC and project affected persons/families. The said NGO officials are regularly visiting the site, meeting and monitoring the work including briefing the project affected families, but the work of such entire survey valuation of affected properties is not completed because of the non availability of ownership documents and non co-operative persons in the area of Shahpur. On the contrary, every efforts are being made by the authorities to conclude the project in smooth and grievance free manner, but it is the petitioners themselves are creating a situation under one pretext or the other.

5.5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi, has submitted that an assertion is made on oath that GMRC controls the electricity connection and frequently disconnecting or reconnecting the same. This allegations is vehemently denied and the petitioners are put to strict proof. On the contrary, there is no instance of disconnection at the instance of GMRC in any manner. It may be that for one or two instance, the electricity connection in early 2018 at the time of initiation of construction activities for the purpose of utility identification, however, there have been no electricity outages on account of GMRC in any case. As on date, the

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

traffic movement in the area is smoother as compared to the situation in 2018. The construction activities were standstill from March, 2020 on account of Covid-19 pandemic, and the same could be resumed only in July, 2020 and thereto with limited labour strength. In any case, now the situation has improved, the surrounding area of shops of the petitioners have been cleared for vehicular movement to the maximum extent and it is being used regularly by them and their customers. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi after referring to these assertions from the affidavit has contended that despite the aforesaid proper care being taken, some elements are always trying to create hurdle in smooth functioning of Metro Rail work, but now since the authorities have taken every possible steps, there is hardly any reason for the petitioners to agitate before this Court. Be that as it may, in any case, the petitioners have no fundamental right in absolute form, particularly, when the public work of such a magnitude is on and further the petitioners are not stopped from carrying on their business activities in any form and, therefore, the petitioners have tried to over pitch their case as if the authorities have infringed their fundamental right, in fact, in reality, no such situation is prevailing.

5.6. To strengthen the submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi has relied upon the following decisions by way of separate compilation of judgments which will be dealt with in the present order at an appropriate place.

Compilation of Judgment on behalf of the Respondent no. 2

Sr. Judgment Citation No.

1. Mohd. Murtaza & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 413

2. Union of India & Ors. v. J.D. Suryavanshi (2011) 13 SCC 167

3. Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr., v. (2008) 1 SCC 683

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

Chander Hass & Anr.,

4. G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 620

5. Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti v. State of 2006 (4) GLR 2954 Gujarat & Ors.

6. Kuchchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors., v. (2013) 12 SCC 226 State of Gujarat & Anr.

6. In re-joinder to this, learned advocate Mr. Gadhavi has reiterated that when the State is undertaking such type of project, it is the duty of the State to compensate the affected persons irrespective of the fact whether their land or property is acquired or not. The State cannot ignore the huge serious impact on their present activity when such project is being undertaken. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhavi has relied upon the policy of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 and has pointed out, which speaks about the duty and by referring to the guidelines contained therein, a contention is tried to be raised that the relies prayed for deserves to be considered, but candidly, learned advocate Mr. Gadhavi has submitted that no pleadings are made in the petition nor any reference is made. It is just sent across during hearing, nor any relief is based upon such policy of 2007 which is tried to be canvassed. Learned advocate Mr. Gadhavi by reiterating serious hardships has requested to consider the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.

7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record it appears that a big project of Metro Rail is being undertaken of public importance and when such kind of projects are being undertaken, usually, persons surrounding are getting affected, but then it appears from the pleading that every steps are being taken by the authorities to minimize the damage if any and to resolve the grievance and to see that the work of Metro Rail can take place in smooth and grievance free manner so much so for that

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

purpose an independent agency has been appointed as stated above which is consistently monitoring the progress and coordinating between GMRC and project affected families and persons so it may not be said in any manner that the State has acted in an arbitrary or unconcerned manner. It further appears that some of the contentions about disruptions of electricity, about traffic congestion, about damage to the properties are the disputed questions of fact which the Court may not inclined to examine the same in extra ordinary jurisdiction, but in any case, a mechanism is provided and rather undertaken by the respondent authorities to make survey of the affected persons and to proceed ahead in consonance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

7.1. From the pleadings it appears that to some extent the petitioners are also not readily accepting this work to be undertaken in smooth manner and under one pretext or the other trying to create a situation to hamper the work. However, be that as it may, the affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder has also analyzed the project affected persons and has clarified to what extent the petitioners are co-operating and as such, from the pleadings it appears that every step is being taken by the authorities to see that minimum hardship be caused to residents of the area including the petitioners and it is not in dispute that on account of this project the business of the petitioners have not been shut down. They are carrying on the business but whenever work of such a magnitude is taking place, some inconvenience may cause to the person concerned, but that would not allow the petitioners to over pitch their case to such a extent that their fundamental rights are infringed. It is settled position of law that whenever there is a conflict between private interest and the public interest, private interest is to be merged and public interest to be given predominance. Hence, in the absence of any fundamental rights or legal

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

rights being infringed, the petition does not deserves to be entertained.

7.2. While coming to this conclusion, the Court is mindful of the decision in the case of Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat & Anr., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 631 and on the proposition on the issue. Hence, the following observations are not possible to be unnoticed by the Court.

"58. The emerging situation is one where private interest is pitted against public interest. The notion of public interest synonymises collective welfare of the people and public institutions and is generally informed with the dictates of public trust doctrine res communious i.e. by everyone in common. Perceptionally health, law and order, peace, security and a clean environment are some of the areas of public and collective good where private rights being in conflict therewith has to take a back seat. In the words of Cicero the good of the people in the chief law.

59. The latin maxim Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex connotes that health, safety and welfare of the public is the supreme in law. Herbert Broom, in his celebrated publication, A Selection of Legal Maxims has elaborated the essence thereof as hereunder: This phrase is based on the implied agreement of every member of the society that his own individual welfare shall, in cases of necessity, yield to that of the community; and that his property, liberty and life shall, under certain circumstances, be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good. The demand of public interest, in the facts of the instant case, thus deserve precedence."

7.3. Additionally, the decisions which have been relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi are also kept in mind by the Court and the observations contained therein are leading to a situation where it is not possible for this Court to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. If the petitioners are project affected families/persons and if they have submitted their details, appropriate measures be taken by the State authorities, but it is not possible to accept the stand of the petitioners in absolute form as suggested in petition. The following observation from

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

the decisions which have been cited by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi are also having significance. Few observations are reproduced hereunder.

8. At this stage, the Court has keeping in mind while coming to the conclusion the propositions which have been laid down by various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court which has been brought to the notice of the Court by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi.

8.1. So far as the decision in the case of Mohd. Murtaza & Ors., v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 413, is concerned, the relevant extract contained in para 11,12, 13 deserves consideration, hence, reproduced hereunder :-

"11. Further, as held in Jyoti Pershad v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1602, the standard of reasonableness must also vary from age to age and be related to the adjustments necessary to solve the problems which communities face from time to time. In adjudging the validity of the restriction the Court has necessarily to approach the question from the point of view of the social interest which the State action intends to promote, vide Puthumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771; P.P. Enterprises v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1016 and Jyoti Pershad v. Union Territory of Delhi (supra), etc.

12. Judged by these standards the impugned action of the authorities cannot be faulted on the ground of lack of reasonableness. As stated in the counter-affidavits filed in these cases, the existing wholesale markets have become the cause of immense traffic congestion in the city, apart from causing diseases, pollution etc. Hence, shifting the wholesale markets to the outskirts of the City or beyond is clearly reasonable.

13. It must be remembered that certain matters are by their very nature such as had better be left to the administrative authorities instead of Courts themselves seeking to substitute their own views and perceptions as to what is the best solution to the problem. The

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

present is clearly an instance where this Court should not interfere with the steps taken by the respondents to resolve a pressing problem. In matters of policy the Courts have a limited role and it should only interfere with the same when it is clearly illegal. That clearly is not the case here. The impugned action is a salutary step for undoing a mischief, which was crying out for redress for a long time, and it is not illegal."

8.2. Additionally, a decision which has been delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. J.D. Suryavanshi reported in (2011) 13 SCC 167, the observations contained in para 11 and 12 are also significant. Hence, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder :-

"11. This court has repeatedly warned that courts should resist the temptation to usurp the power of the Executive by entering into arenas which are exclusively within the domain of the executive.

10. How many coaches should be attached, what types of coaches are to be attached, on which lines what trains should run, what should be their timings and frequency, are all matters to be decided by the Railway administration using technical inputs, depending upon financial, administrative, social and other considerations. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should not interfere in matters of policy or in the day-to- day functioning of any departments of governments or statutory bodies. Even within the executive, the need for separation of roles has been voiced.

12. We may usefully refer to the following observation in the Rakesh Mohan Committee Report (1998) made in a different context :

"With regard to institutional separation of roles, into policy, regulatory and management functions, these roles are currently blurred, which causes confusion about the underlying vision and mission of Indian Railway. The institutional separation of roles will mean that policy makers are limited to setting policy; regulators fix competition rules in general and pricing in particular; management manages and is measured against clear performance indicators."

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

8.3. Yet another decision relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr., v. Chander Hass & Anr., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 683 in which the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court have been taken into consideration but with a view to avoid over burdening of the present order, the Court deems it proper not to reproduce the same..

8.4. Yet further decision which is emphasized and relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi in the case of G.

Sundarrajan v. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620 in which, the observations contained in para 238 and 240 since are somewhat relevant to the present order, the Court deems it proper to reproduce para 240 hereunder :-

"240.The other principle that has been ingrained is that if a project is beneficial for the larger public, inconvenience to smaller number of people is to be accepted. It has to be respectfully accepted as a proposition of law that individual interest or, for that matter, smaller public interest must yield to the larger public interest. Inconvenience of some should be bypassed for a larger interest or cause of the society. But, a pregnant one, the present case really does not fall within the four corners of that principle. It is not a case of the land oustees. It is not a case of some inconvenience. It is not comparable to the loss caused to property."

8.5. The observations made in para 240 as stated above are based upon series of decisions being considered which are reflecting in para 238.1 onward upto 238.6 of said judgment. As a result of this, it appears to this Court that no case is made out by the petitioners.

9. There are few other decisions brought to the notice from the compilation, but the most relevant decisions are taken in aid by the Court while considering the grievance of the petitioners and from overall

C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021

proposition of law laid down by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that whenever there is a work of such a magnitude is undertaken by the respondent authorities, of overall public interest, some inconvenience might cause, but that would not allow few handful persons to make an attempt to thwart the process since as held by catena of decisions that private interest to be merged in public interest and public interest always to be given precedence. This is exactly visible on the case on hand. Hence, the petitioners have miserably failed to make out any case to consider the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. In addition to the aforesaid prevailing proposition propounded by various decisions the reliance which has been later on placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner about Policy of 2007, in the absence of any pleadings on record and as such in view of the fact that the Court cannot travel beyond the reliefs or the pleadings as the case may be, it is not possible for this Court to accept the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner.

10. This being the situation, the petition stands dismissed Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.

sd/-

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni