International Human Rights ... vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3547 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                W.P.(C) No.3913 of 2021

            International Human Rights Council           ....          Petitioner
                                                      Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                                         -versus-
            State of Odisha and others            .... Opposite Parties
                              Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A. for the State

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                          ORDER

17.04.2023 Order No.

13. 1. On 5th July 2021, the Court had passed the following order:

"1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in para 13 of the counter affidavit, the Opposite Parties have stated that the assertions of the petitioner are wrong and there are two bridges in different locations. One is proposed over river Poteru near Sonali village on MPV-69 to MV-115 and the second on MV-79 (Ramnagar) connecting Podia and Kalimela. It appears that a fresh tender call has been issued in respect of the bridge i.e. MPV-79 but not yet in respect of the former bridge from MPV69.

3.Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties prays for some time to obtain instructions as regards the fresh for the first bridge i.e. MPV-69 to MV-115.

4. List on 26th August, 2021.

5. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID- 19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the

petitioners may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021."

2. Thereafter, affidavits had been filed by the Opposite Parties. But, the position as regards the second bridge in the area was unclear. On 2nd December 2021, the following order was passed in the present petition:

"1. It appears from the statement made today by Mr. Pravakar Behera, currently working as Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division-II, Malkanagiri that only one bridge is being constructed. He seems unclear as to the status of the second bridge.

2. In that view of the matter, Mr. S.N. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel states that he will file a supplementary counter affidavit to explain the anomalous statement made in Paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit already filed, after consulting with the Superintending Engineer.

3. The supplementary affidavit be filed on or before 17th January, 2022.

4. List on 24th January, 2022."

3. Again on 21st November 2022, after perusing the supplementary affidavit filed, this Court passed the following order:

"1. In the supplementary affidavit, it is sought to be suggested that constructing another bridge "is found to be not commercially viable". When the Court posed a specific query as to what the State

means by 'commercially viable', learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State volunteers to file yet another affidavit explaining why the earlier proposal to have a second bridge was dropped.

2. The further affidavit be filed under the instructions of the Secretary, Rural Development Department within four weeks with an advance copy to learned counsel for the Petitioner.

3. List on 7th February, 2023."

4. Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department on 5th April, 2023. Para 4 of the said affidavit reads as under:

"4. That the term 'commercially viable' used in the said sentence means consideration of the aspect of extra expenditure, which will have to be borne by the State Government for constructing another bridge (H.L. Bridge over river Poteru near Sonali Village on MPV-69 to MV-115), when the State Government has already spent Rs.14 crores approximately for construction of the first Bridge, which is near the proposed second bridge and at the stage of completion. If the second Bridge is constructed, the State Government will have to spend another Rs.14 crores or more, which is an extra burden on the State Government, specifically when the construction of this second bridge is not necessary. Moreover, since the first bridge will serve the same population and is not at a far away distance from proposed bridge near Sonali village, therefore, the State Government after taking into consideration these aspects has dropped the proposal for construction of the second bridge."

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that the second bridge would be at a distance of 4 km from the present one and will therefore benefit the villagers who may not have to walk another 4 km to cross a bridge.

6. There is no doubt that any order passed by this Court issuing a mandamus to the Government for a second bridge would have financial implications, and in this case, it is stated to be Rs.14 crores.

7. These are the policy matters of the Government - as to where a bridge should be located and whether it is viable or not. It is best left to the judgment of the executive as it is in a better position, keeping in view a variety of factors, to take a decision in that regard. The Court is not satisfied that there are any compelling reasons to issue a mandamus to the Government as regards the second bridge.

8. The Court is therefore not inclined to interfere. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge S.K. Guin