Patna High Court
The Chairman vs Shambhu Prasad Gupta on 10 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1259 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4961 of 2022
======================================================
1. The Chairman, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna.
3. The Senior Project Manager, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited,
Saharsa.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Shambhu Prasad Gupta Son of Late Shanti Prasad Gupta, Resident of Ward
No.21, Shankar Chowk, Police Station- Saharsa, District- Saharsa.
2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail
Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport
Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
5. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.
6. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur.
7. The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Patna.
8. The Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Patna.
9. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
10. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa.
11. The Superintending Engineer, RCD Road Circle, Saharsa.
12. The Executive Engineer, RCD Road Division, Saharsa.
13. The Sub Divisional Officer, Saharsa.
14. The Circle Officer, Kahra, District- Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4961 of 2022
======================================================
Shambhu Prasad Gupta, Son of Late Shanti Prasad Gupta, Resident of Ward
No. 21, Shankar Chowk, Police Station, Saharsa, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
2/10
3. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport
Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
4. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District - Vaishali.
5. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur.
6. The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Road
Construction Department Patna.
7. The Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Patna.
8. The Chairman, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna.
9. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna.
10. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
11. The Senior Project Manager, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited,
Saharsa.
12. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa.
13. The Superintending Engineer, RCD Road Circle, Saharsa.
14. The Executive Engineer, RCD Road Division, Saharsa.
15. The Sub Divisional Officer, Saharsa.
16. The Circle Officer, Kahra, District - Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2175 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4961 of 2022
======================================================
Shambhu Prasad Gupta Son of Late Shanti Prasad Gupta Resident of Ward
No. 21, Shankar Chowk, Police Station, Saharsa, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Sri Milind K. Deouskar, the Secretary, Ministry
of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Sri Milind K. Deouskar, the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. Sri Anurag Jain, The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Transport Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
4. Sri Anupam Sharma, the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
District Vaishali.
5. Sri Vinay Srivastava, the Divisional Railway Manager, East Central
Railway, Samastipur.
6. The State of Bihar, through Sri Pratyay Amrit, the Additional Chief
Secretary, Road Construction Department Patna.
7. Sri Pratyay Amrit, the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
3/10
8. Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, the Chairman, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam
Limited, Patna.
9. Sri Sunil Kumar, the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam
Limited, Patna.
10. Sri Vaibhav Chaudhary, the District Magistrate, Saharsa.
11. Sri Depesh Kumar, the Senior Project Manager, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman
Nigam Limited, Saharsa.
12. Sri Rabindra Kumar, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa.
13. Sri Umashankar Rajak, the Superintending Engineer, RCD Road Circle,
Saharsa.
14. Sri BHarat Lal, the Executive Engineer, RCD Road Division, Saharsa.
15. Sri Pradeep Kumar Jha, the Sub Divisional Officer, Saharsa.
16. Sri Laxman Prasad, the Circle Officer, Kahra, District - Saharsa.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1259 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, A.S.G.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4961 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uday Shankar Sharan Singh (G.P.-19)
For the State : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P
For the Railway : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, C.G.C.
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2175 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
For the Railway : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 10-02-2025
Re. I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 1259 of
2024 :-
The learned Advocate for the appellants presses
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
the afore-noted interlocutory application for condoning
the delay of 740 days in preferring this appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the
delay of 740 days in preferring this appeal is, hereby,
condoned.
3. I.A. No. 1 of 2024 stands allowed.
Re. L.P.A. No. 1259 of 2024; C.W.J.C. No.
4961 of 2022 and M.J.C. No. 2175 of 2023 :-
4. We have heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned
Advocate General for the State; Mr. P.N. Shahi, the
learned Senior Advocate for the respondents and Dr. K.N.
Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the
Union of India. We have also heard Mr. Anshay Bahadur
Mathur, the learned counsel for the Railways.
5. For the reason of a writ petition having been
kept pending by a learned Single Judge of this Court and
also entertaining the contempt petition simultaneously,
the State came before this Court challenging the order
passed by the Writ Court, asking the respondents to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
apprise the Court of the developments in the matter.
6. The issue relates to the construction of ROB
(Rail Over Bridge) in the District of Saharsa at a
particular location.
7. The writ petitioner had preferred an
application seeking a direction to the
Authorities/respondents to review and shift the proposed
plan of construction of ROB to some more convenient
place or to redesign the proposed approach road
connecting the ROB to some other place, which would
have saved the main market places of Saharsa town from
being displaced.
8. Entertaining such a prayer, the learned writ-
Court directed the respondents to re-consider shifting or
changing the alignments and also include the writ
petitioner in its discussions. The same was done, but in
the absence of the writ petitioner, meeting was held and
the issue was deliberated upon.
9. The Railway Administration also looked at the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
plan and the design and found that the suggestions made
by the petitioner were not feasible for the reason of
safety and durability of the ROB.
10. Nonetheless, despite such facts having been
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, a
contempt petition was entertained and an order was
passed that the authorities would apprise the Court about
the progress made in the construction of ROB.
11. After about seven months of passing such
orders by the contempt Court, the State preferred an
appeal alleging that because of the pendency of the writ
petition and the contempt petition together before the
learned Single Judge, the work of ROB construction has
been derailed, which has enured in no body's favour or
advantage.
12. On a plain reading of orders passed by the
writ Court as also by the contempt Court, we are at a loss
to understand as to how, without any stay order having
been passed, the process of construction was delayed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
Nonetheless, because of that apprehension in the mind of
the respondents that during the pendency of such
petitions before the learned Single Judge, it would only be
wise and prudent not to proceed with the work any
further, a decision was taken to challenge the order of the
writ Court.
13. We thus deem it appropriate to and condone
the delay in preferring the appeal.
14. For the purposes of putting an end to all this
litigation, this Court had earlier called for the records of
C.W.J.C. No 4961 of 2022 and the contempt petition
(M.J.C. No. 2175 of 2023) along with this appeal.
15. All the records have been produced before
this Court.
16. Mr. P.N. Shahi, the learned Senior Advocate
for the writ petitioner has argued that the recalcitrance of
the Railway Authorities in not changing the plan or
making a deviation in the site plan would only end up in
usurpation of land belonging to the landholders but no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
process, as yet, has been started for acquisition of their
lands, thus anticipating that it would be an "acquisition
under ambush", without following the procedures
prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 with respect to the safeguards
which inheres in the Act, guaranteeing the right to
property under Article 300 (A) of the Constitution.
17. We are afraid ,such was not the prayer in
the writ petition.
18. The writ petitioner had approached this
Court only with the prayer for commanding the
respondents to review the design of ROB, its alignment
and the approach road.
19. We are of the considered view that a
mandamus could be issued only for enforcing a right and
not for adjudication of rights.
20. In the present case, the learned Single
Judge though was content with making a direction for a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
re-consideration of the entire design at the instance of the
writ petitioner, which was done but not found to be
feasible, kept the petition pending and also entertained
the contempt petition.
21. We, therefore, thought it best in this appeal
to look at the records of the writ petition as also the
contempt petition and take a final call for the reason that
the work has not progressed even a wee bit.
22. We find that the views of the writ petitioner
was put across, considered, and rejected because it was
not found to be viable as also feasible to make any
changes on the alignments, even if it be at the cost
acquisition of land, which would entail more costs to the
Government.
23. The technical decisions cannot be interfered
with and no Court, in its wisdom, could substitute its
opinion or the opinion of a writ petitioner for that of the
specific inputs by the technocrats, who have taken an
informed decision and have found the suggestions of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1259 of 2024 dt.10-02-2025
writ petitioner to be absolutely unviable.
24. Under these circumstances, in order to put a
decent quietus to all these proceedings, we have
examined all the three records, viz., L.P.A. No. 1259 of
2024, C.W.J.C. No 4961 of 2022 and M.J.C. No. 2175 of
2023 and we find that it would be in the interest of
everyone that all three are closed and consigned.
25. We order accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Manoj/Praveen-II
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
