[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tripathy Naik & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR W.P.(C) No.1293 of 2025
Tripathy Naik & others .... Petitioners
Mr. Avijit Patnaik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA for O.P. Nos.1 to 6
Mr. T. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. No.7
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:27.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:12.03.2026
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing
the impugned decision of opposite party No.2 as at
Annexure-7 by order dated 8th August, 2024 as illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to law and for a direction to the
opposite parties to construct the HL bridge at Jharabereni in
place of the approved site at Tileiposi on the grounds inter
alia that the same is necessary in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioners as the residents of village-Jharabereni
under Budhapal G.P. have questioned of arbitrary shifting of
the site vis-à-vis the construction of HL bridge over Tikira
river which is a project under the Panchayatiraj & Rural
Development Department, Government of Odisha primarily
on the ground that they are not benefited by the decision of
the Government. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief
facts of the case are that in the year 2020-21, opposite party
No.1 proposed construction of HL bridges at different rural
area of the State including the site at serial No.1 of the
proposal at village-Jharabereni. According to the petitioners,
after the proposal of the Government in the year 2020-21 as
per Annexure-1, opposite party No.3 visited the spot on 18th
March, 2023 for inspection/site verification and also for the
soil test located at Tileiposi site, but it was found unfit for
the reasons, such as, (a) right angle crossing is not available;
(b) it involves large scale of private lands in the left
approach; (c) the left approach has to pass parallel to the
river bank for some distance after which sharp bend is
required, which is not desirable; (d) in the right approach, a
private mango orchard and private land exists and inside
village-Tileiposi, the existing road has become too narrow
having dwelling houses on both sides; and (e) uncertainty in
completion of the bridge at the site.
3. Referring to a copy of the inspection report as at
Annexure-2 series, according to the petitioners, the
proposed site was found unfit for construction of HL bridge,
whereafter, Jharabereni Pradhan Sahi Ghat situate around
the same vicinity was identified, pursuant to which, the
opposite parties made a visit to the spot for site inspection
and prepared an enquiry report dated 29th August, 2023 with
a conclusion that the same is fit for construction of the
bridge. A copy of the enquiry report is at Annexure-3
referring to which the above claim has been advanced by the
petitioners. It is pleaded on record that the opposite parties
allowed to construction work of HL bridge to the contractor
at Tileiposi site over Tikira river which was earlier rejected
for the reason that it was unfit by an allotment order in his
favour vide Annexure-4. The petitioners being aggrieved by
the work order issued to the contractor challenged the
decision of the opposite parties on the following grounds,
namely,(i) the shifting of the site could not have been
directed especially when the site inspection report as per
Annexure-2 series recommended such construction to be
unsuitable which was followed by the representation dated
12th February, 2024 submitted to opposite party No.2;(ii) the
opposite parties arbitrarily proposed such shifting of the site
claiming that there has been inspection of the site at
Tileiposi in presence of the concerned officials and upon
recommendation received, the construction of the bridge has
been considered suitable, inasmuch as, the decision dated
17th February, 2024 is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India; (iii) opposite party No.2 did not
follow the direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No.4632 of
2024 and instead of complying the same with a Committee
constituted, the alleged construction at Tileiposi has been
approved even by not giving opportunity to the petitioners
and as such, the entire exercise is biased without any valid
reasons and contrary to the earlier inspection/site
verification and soil test report as per Annexure-3 series;
and (iv) the decision is in violation of the existing Biju Setu
Yojana Guidelines, according to which, there should not be
any existing bridge within 4 km upstream and downstream
of the proposed bridge measured along with the stream, but
the opposite parties ignored the same for the reason best
known to them as there are two other bridges situate within
2.2 to 2.8 kms of the recommended bridge site at Tileiposi
Ghat; and (v) the impugned decision as per Annexure-7 not
by considering the grievance of the petitioners and ignoring
Annexure-2 series without valid reasons assigned and
providing them opportunity of hearing at the time of
verification and having not conducted the inspection/site
verification regard being had to the impact assessment
project with aspects like connectivity/population, public
safety etc. deserves to be quashed.
4. Perused the counter affidavit filed by the State through
opposite party Nos.1 to 6. Gone through the counter of
opposite party No.7 and the rejoinder of the petitioners.
5. According to the State, such grievance of the petitioners,
in view of adverse report received with regard to the
proposed work site, a joint inspection was held led by the
Director, Rural Development Department and Engineer-in-
Chief, Rural Development (Odisha), Bhubaneswar at
Tileiposi Ghat and also Jharabereni site on 6th May, 2023
and suggested to take up the survey work either at 500 metre
upstream of the approved location at Tileiposi or a suitable
location in between the two Ghats and in view such
instructions received, opposite party No.5 took up the
survey work on 3rd June, 2023 to examine and revise the site
plan/alignment but due to protest of the local villagers, it
could not be carried out. It is pleaded that the villagers of
the Tileiposi, demanding construction of bridge at the
original approved site, submitted representations at different
levels and because of such protest of both the villagers,
opposite party No.5 requested opposite party No.6 to take
up the survey by engaging/deputing Bridge Experts to
finalize the alignment of the bridge site and as a result, the
team constituted was requested on 19th January, 2024 and to
visit the site for the said purpose. The Bridge Expert team
inspected the site on 8th February, 2024 and suggested the
alignment near Tileiposi Ghat with straight approaches in
either side and submitted report to opposite party No.6 on
17th February, 2024. It has been further pleaded that
pursuant to direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No.4632 of
2024, opposite party No.2 constituted a District Level
Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional District
Magistrate, Deogarh and including therein, the CDO & EO,
Jilla Parisada, Deogarh; Sub-Collector, Deogarh and others
to conduct field visit and as such, it was held on 29th July,
2024 with submission of report suggesting construction of
bridge over Tikira river at Tileiposi Ghat and in view of
such report, opposite party No.2 took the decision dated 8 th
August, 2024 and in the meantime, tender was invited
through e-procurement by opposite party No.6 and the work
approved is at serial No.19 of the tender call notice. By
following due processes, the tender was finalized and M/s.
S.K. Agarwalla, Special Class Contractor has been awarded
the work with an agreement stating therein the date of
commencement and completion shall be on 27th December,
2023 and 26th June, 2025 respectively. It has been claimed
that due to the protest and filing of W.P.(C) No.4632 of
2024, the construction work has been delayed but was
commenced on 6th January, 2025. The further claim is that
on 9th January, 2024, the final layout for the HL bridge was
provided to the agency to take up the confirmatory boring
works of the well foundation as per the approved design of
the Government and further process has been followed and
in the meantime, soil investigation has also been
accomplished. By claiming that the above exercise has been
undertaken, the State has referred to the correspondences
and other documentation including the report of the
Committee besides the tender call notice at Annexures-A/5
to H/5. The stand of the opposite parties is that the
suitability to construct the HL bridge at Tileiposi has been
recommended by the Bridge Experts and also the District
Level Committee constituted by opposite party No.2
pursuant to the direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No.4632 of
2024 and accordingly, a decision has been taken vide
Annexure-7 as per the original plan whereafter necessary
correspondence was made by the Additional District
Magistrate, Deogarh with instruction to opposite party No.5
to commence the construction work as per the alignment at
Tileiposi Ghat and to report compliance. The other
correspondences exchanged thereafter have also been
referred to as Annexures-J/5 to N/5. It is finally pleaded that
the Committee recommended the construction of the bridge
as per original approved alignment and considering the
same, opposite party No.2 took a decision vide Annexure-7,
which is perfectly justified and hence, not susceptible to
challenge at the behest of the petitioners.
6. Opposite party No.7 supported the impugned decision
dated 8th August, 2024 with the pleading in the counter that
the District Level Committee was constituted, which was
headed by the Additional District Magistrate, Deogarh and it
recommended the construction of the HL bridge over
Tileiposi Ghat on Tikira river as the most suitable site as has
been approved by the Government, which is also cost
effective. It is further pleaded that the foundation stone was
laid on 9th January, 2025 and construction of the bridge was
started on 10th January, 2025 with the land agreement
entered into on the same date but the work has been stopped
from 25th January, 2025 in view of interim order of this
Court and as a result, there has been irreparable loss
sustained and prejudice cause to them. It is claimed further
that there is no direct or short-cut road or bi-road connecting
the HL bridge at village Sarapal over NH 53 and the bridge
is located after convergence of two rivers Tikira and Aunli
and the people having no all-weather road connectivity to
the G.P. HQs at Budhapal which is on other side of the river
and that apart, the residents around have no option except to
travel through villages-Tebuda, Ramachandrapur, Sundarpal
of Angul district and village-Sendha of Deogarh district
covering 9-10 kms to reach the G.P. HQs at Budhapal for
education, healthcare, weekly market, business and banking
etc. and availing Government schematic benefits and during
rainy season, the people are to depend on ferry boats
endangering their lives and in so far as the plea that the site
is not in accordance with BSY Guideline regarding 4 km
norm, the same is not applicable and there is full
justification of the proposed bridge at Tileiposi and while
claiming so, a sketch map as at Annexure-A/7 is referred to
and therefore, the decision of opposite party No.2 is based
on the Expert report and Committee's recommendation,
hence, not to be disturbed.
7. Perused the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners wherein
it is pleaded that no opportunity has been provided to the
petitioners to participate in the entire process and the
decision of opposite party No.2 is without following the
guidelines issued by the Government especially by not
considering the other report of opposite party No.3 pointing
out several short-comings as per Annexure-2. That apart, the
petitioners pleaded that in the report at Annexure-2, the
recommendation has been made for shifting of the
alignment towards upstream of Tileiposi Ghat towards
Jharabereni in respect of BSY Guidelines but the same has
been blatantly flouted. It is also pleaded that the opposite
parties have approved a bridge proposal across Tikira river
and started all such initiative to construct it but suitability of
the location for construction and the recommendation as per
Annexure-2 has been completely ignored. The contention is
that the opposite parties misinterpreted the inspection report
of opposite party No.3 and even termed it as adverse and not
only that the report of the Bridge Expert team has also been
misunderstood. Like opposite party No.3, the Expert team
suggested a straight approach in the report and vested the
responsibility of finalizing the alignment on opposite party
No.6 and therein, non-approval of the bridge at Tileiposi
Ghat is rather evident and with such other facts pleaded, the
petitioners questioned the decision of opposite party No.2
for not considering the suitability of the site and therefore,
such decision needs a revisit.
8. Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel for opposite party No.7.
9. The bone of contention is for shifting of construction of
HL Bridge over the river on the ground that such
construction is taking place at the site, which was earlier
considered unfit. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the inspection/site verification was
held previously and for the reasons stated therein, it was
proposed that the same is not suitable but in ignorance of
such a report and recommendation, the decision has been
taken by opposite party No.2 and that too, it was without
providing them any opportunity of hearing. The further
submission is that opposite party No.2 did not consider the
aspects gone into and taken to judicial notice of at the time
of inspection of the proposed site with the necessary
recommendations made and conclusion that the construction
of the bridge there was not suitable. For other reasons
pleaded on record, referring to which, Mr. Patnaik, learned
counsel submits that the decision of opposite party No.2 is
arbitrary and in the meantime, the construction work has
been allotted to the Contractor at the same site, which was
earlier considered unfit and unsuitable. It is claimed that in
spite of a representation addressed to opposite party No.2
with the grievance of the petitioners as there is objection to
the construction of the site in question, it has not been dealt
with properly, instead followed by the impugned order at
Annexure-7, which is, therefore, not sustainable in the eye
of law for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. In other words, the recommendation as per
Annexure-6 and the final decision by opposite party No.2
dated 8th August, 2024 vis-à-vis construction of the HL
Bridge at the proposed site with a conclusion that it shall
have suitable alignment is not legally tenable, and hence, the
impugned order i.e. Annexure-7 is liable to be interfered
with for the ends of justice.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the
State would submit that necessary paraphernalia have been
observed by opposite party No.2 and even the District Level
Committee was constituted and upon receipt of inspection
report as per Annexure-6 and recommendations made,
taking into account the interest of the public at large
proceeded, it has been decided that the construction over the
river at the Tileiposi Ghat is best suitable, which has also
received the approval of the Government concurring the
observations of the Committee thereby directing execution
of the construction work at the Ghat, which is, therefore,
perfectly justified and hence, it needs no revision.
11. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.7
would submit that even though there has been any such
report as per Annexure-2 pursuant to the Court's direction in
W.P.(C) No.4632 of 2024 dated 29th February, 2024,
opposite party No.2 constituted the District Level
Committee and upon receiving the recommendations in
respect of all the sites reached at a conclusion that the
Tileiposi Ghat is a suitable location for construction of HL
Bridge and therefore, no illegality has been committed,
inasmuch as, all such aspects have been duly taken
cognizance of and hence, the impugned order at Annexure-7
is in accordance with the suggestions of the Committee
corroborated by the inspection report i.e. Annexure-6, the
Court should not intervene with the decision.
12. On a reading of Annexure-6, the Court finds that the
proposed site was inspected on 8th February, 2024 by the
team of experts along with the Executive Engineer, Deogarh
RD Division and other officials. It is revealed in the said
report that the Bridge Experts of the Project Management
Unit, RD Department, Government of Odisha found the
location at Tileiposi Ghat having suitable alignment. The
site in question was vividly studied and according to the
Expert team, it was considered appropriate, as there is one
existing road connecting to the PWD Road on Tileiposi site.
The said recommendation having been received by opposite
party No.2 and considering the opinion of the District Level
Committee, decision has been taken by opposite party No.2
vide Annexure-7. Insofar as the earlier inspection report as
per Annexure-2 series is concerned, it reveals that the same
site was inspected between 8th February, 2023 and 10th
February, 2023 and even the soil investigation was held and
it was recommended that the same is not suitable for the
reasons already discussed hereinbefore. On a reading of
Annexure-2 series, it is revealed that the recommendation
by the Special Secretary to the Government in RD
Department is on the premise and for the reasons outlined
therein. The concern expressed in the report at Annexure-2
series has been taken judicial notice of with regard to the
issues acquiring private lands and proper access for the
villagers of Jharabereni in approaching Budhapal via
Tileiposi. Considering the report at Annexure-2 series, it
cannot be said that there has been any technical objection
for the construction of bridge at Tileiposi Ghat. The issues
involved and highlighted upon therein have been well taken
care of by opposite party No.2 after receiving the
recommendation of the team of experts and opinion of the
District Level Committee.
13. In fact, all the sites were inspected including the one, for
which, administrative approval has been accorded by the
Government. The question is, whether, the Court is to
accept and prefer one report or the other while considering
the correctness of the decision of opposite party No.2?
Admittedly, the expert team inspected the site and furnished
the details of such inspection with recommendations. As
earlier stated, there has been no real technical objection of
any of the inspection teams since the recommendations are
primarily in relation to the location and better preferences
besides convenience or otherwise caused to the inhabitants
of the villages situated around and nearby. The Court is of
the considered view that the decision of the local
administration regarding construction of the bridge can only
be challenged provided the decision-making process is
vitiated on account of irrationality or procedural impropriety
rather than considering merit-based evaluation of the
technical reports.
14. No doubt, any such decision may be subject to scrutiny.
The objection to the construction of the bridge is based on
Annexure-2 series, whereas, it has been followed by site
inspection/verification by a bridge team and upon receiving
the recommendations from them and opinion of the District
Level Committee, it has been considered suitable.
According to the Court, the challenges are generally to be
restricted to the issues of legality of the decision, rather,
than evaluation of the technical aspects of the alleged
construction. Law is well settled that Courts are generally
reluctant to interfere with the technical decisions by experts
while undertaking an exercise of judicial review. Law is
equally settled that the decision-making process may be
subjected to scrutiny, if it is biased, unfair or influenced by
ulterior motives rather than public interest. That apart, a
Court is to examine whether the decision is so irrational that
no Authority could have reached at it despite having expert
inputs. In other words, the principles of Wednesbury
Unreasonableness are to be applied to find out whether there
is any irrationality in the decision-making process. The
procedural impropriety on the part of an Authority failing to
follow the mandatory statutory procedures or principles of
natural justice can also be the basis questioning the legality
of a decision. But according to Court, when opinions and
suggestions of the experts are obtained, there is a need of
judicial restraint. In other words, the Courts are to restrain
especially in technical matters and rarely to substitute any
such decision of the Authority with their own even when a
contrary expert report exists. As a necessary corollary, if an
administrative decision is based on an expert report found to
be reasonable, it should not be easily overturned referring to
a contrary view and suggestion, as at times, reports
contradict each other but it is often realized that the
suggestions are though different but carry equally plausible
conclusion. Unless a contrary report indicates a severe risk,
such as, structural danger, improper planning etc. with such
other deficiencies glaringly visible, a decision of the local
administration is not to be ignored or tampered with. Any
such report revealing technical shortages, which could
ultimately result in risk and danger and ignored by the
administration, it would definitely be a subject of challenge
to prove that the decision of the Authority to be flawed. To
reiterate, the Court is of the ultimate view that judicial
review of a decision-making process shall have to be based
on the factors discussed hereinabove instead of dealing with
the merits of the decision itself. If the decision is so
unreasonable that no prudent person or Authority could
have ever arrived at, in such a situation, the Court has to
intervene even though there have been reports received and
suggestions considered. If there is mala fide in the decision
or any such decision is ill-motivated, under such
circumstances, the Court has a role and responsibility to
interfere, but presence of a contrary expert report does not
automatically invalidate a decision of the Authority. The
Court is only to examine whether the Administration
considered all the relevant expert views and made a
reasoned decision or whether acted blindly. If the
administrative decision is based on a well-considered report,
it is to upheld despite contradictory opinion expressed.
15. In the case at hand, the adverse report is as per
Annexure-2 series, but it has been given a go by by opposite
party No.2 and accepted the site inspection report of the
Bridge Experts of Project Management Unit of the
concerned Department. It is also revealed from the export
report at Annexure-6 that the site inspection was held by the
officials and the Executive Engineer, Deogarh RD Division.
Such inspection has been held pursuant to the Court's order
in W.P.(C) No.4632 of 2024 and not only that, opposite
party No.2 constituted a District Level Committee and
considered its recommendation. As earlier mentioned, both
reports though not really harp upon the technical
deficiencies rather on ideal location and whether one site or
the other would cause convenience to the inhabitants of the
local villages situated at and around the proposed site by the
construction of the bridge as proposed. The Court finds that
a fresh inspection was held at the site even with a District
Level Committee formed by opposite party No.2 and only
upon receiving the recommendations/opinions, the decision
as per Annexure-7 has been arrived at. It cannot be said that
there is any mala fide on the part of opposite party No.2 to
sideline the interest of the petitioners or the villages to
which they belong to. All such exercise has been undertaken
by opposite party No.2, which can be said to be just and
reasonable. The expert opinion has been obtained by
opposite party No.2 and considering the apprehension
expressed by the petitioners and their concern, opposite
party No.2 reached at a conclusion that the construction of
HL Bridge at Tileiposi Ghat is more appropriate with issues
earlier flagged having been addressed to. In absence of any
such serious concern shown by the expert team and as there
has been due process followed by opposite party No.2
before reaching at the decision, which received
corroboration by the opinion of the District Level
Committee, this Court, being alive to the settled position of
law and the principles discussed hereinbefore, is of the
ultimate view that the site proposed and approved by the
Government for the construction of HL Bridge needs no
reconsideration. In other words, the Court is of the
conclusion that the impugned order at Annexure-7 by
opposite party No.2 cannot be said to be irrational, illegal
and perverse so as to interfere with it in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The conclusion is that there has been no wrong
or illegality committed by opposite party No.2 in the
decision-making process and the conclusion at the end is
backed by an expert report and also the recommendation of
the District Level Committee and accordingly, it is ordered.
16. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok/Manoj
