Ram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14903 Raj

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2642/2021

1.     Ram Singh S/o Shri Tul Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
       Village Banar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
2.     Ramdeen S/o Shri Puna Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
       Village Banar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3.     Chautha Ram S/o Shri Kana Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
       R/o Village Banar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
4.     Bhera Ram S/o Shri Dungar Ram, Aged About 64 Years,
       R/o Village Banar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
                                                                ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through The Joint Secretary - Iii,
       Department Of Urban Development, Government Of
       Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.     Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road
       Transport And Highways, New Delhi.
3.     National Highways Authority Of India, Through Its Project
       Director, Project Implementation Unit, Jodhpur 188 Umaid
       Heritage, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)
4.     The District Collector, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5.     Jodhpur       Development              Authority,        Through     Its
       Commissioner.
6.     Gram Panchayat Banar, Through Its Sarpanch, District
       Jodhpur (Raj.)
7.     Mukna Ram, S/o Sh. Bhakar Ram, aged about 57 years,
       R/o Bantioyon ki Dhani, Saranklnagar, bavrala, District
       Jodhpur.
8.     Mahipal, S/o Sh. Manoj Kumr, aged about 34 years, R/o
       Bantioyon ki Dhani, Banar, Tehsil and District Jodhpur.
9.     Dhalla Ram, S/o Shriram, aged about 76 years, R/o
       Village Aagnva, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
10.    Narsing Ram Choudhary, S/o Sh. Ladhu Ram, aged about
       51 years, R/o Village Gujravas, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.
11.    Laxman Ram Kukana, S/o Sh. Amra Ram Kukana, aged
       about 56 years, r/o Kukana ki Dhani, Kucchipala Nagour
       (Raj.)
12.    Chhota Ram, S/o Sh. Pabu Ram, aged about 59 years,
       R/o Village Post Khokhriya, Tehsil & District Jodhpur.

                    (Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 12:09:08 AM)
                                          (2 of 7)                  [CW-2642/2021]




                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Aidan Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Sunil Joshi.
                               Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
                               Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.C.
                               Mr. Bhikha Ram Bishnoi.
                               Mr. Himanshu Choudhary.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                              JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                         :::              19/12/2022
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                           :::              22/11/2022



BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)

1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition in the

nature of Public Interest Litigation in relation to the alleged

deviation from the approved structural plan for widening of the

NH-112 (Bar-Banar Section and ROB at the Three-Way Junction)

near the Banar Village.

2. Learned counsel Shri Aidan Choudhary representing the

petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that in the previous

round, when the petitioners realised that the respondent NHAI

was constructing the Highway by deviating from the originally

approved structural plan wherein, a flyover/ over bridge was

proposed to be constructed at the Three-Way Junction near the

Banar village, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petition

No.10749/2019 wherein, the respondents submitted an affidavit

that the road over bridge would be constructed and on this

(3 of 7) [CW-2642/2021]

assurance, the Court accepted this assertion of the respondents

and accordingly, writ petition was disposed of. However,

subsequently, the respondents proceeded to construct the

Highway without the road over bridge. Furthermore, the

construction of the road, as it exists, has been done without

adhering to the mandatory requirements of the Indian Road

Congress Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as 'the IRC

Guidelines'). Appropriate slip lanes have not been provided near

the locations where there are public facilities, school, etc. thereby

causing a serious hazard for the school children. On these

grounds, Shri Choudhary implored the Court to accept the writ

petition and direct the respondents to construct a road over bridge

as per the assurance given in this Court or in the alternative, to

create slip lanes for the entire stretch of the road.

3. Considering the nature of averments made by the

petitioners, this Court had, by a detailed order dated 20.10.2021,

posed certain questions to the respondents. After receiving the

response of the respondents, this court, by order dated

24.01.2022, appointed Shri Devi Lal Vyas as Court Commissioner

to visit the road in question and to prepare a local site plan with

all the relevant measurements. Consequent thereto, the Court

Commissioner prepared the report and submitted it on record on

15.03.2022. The copy of the report has been provided to the

counsel representing the petitioners.

4. In reply and counter affidavits filed by the NHAI, it has been

pleaded that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The road

in question has been constructed with the strict adherence to the

(4 of 7) [CW-2642/2021]

provisions contained in the National Highways Rules 1956 and the

IRC Guidelines, 2014. Widening of the four strip lanes was carried

out by acting upon the design prepared by the technical experts.

The construction of the highway in question was completed well

before the earlier PIL came to be filed and the present writ

petition has been filed with oblique motives. Shri Joshi placed

reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of

India vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC

3210 and implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition with

heavy cost.

5. At the outset, we may note that the petitioners heavily relied

upon the proceedings of the earlier Writ Petition No.10749/2019

(Parbat Dan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein, the NHAI

submitted an affidavit to the effect that the widening project

would be in accordance with the approved structural plan. As per

the petitioners, in the originally approved structural plan, there

was a proposal to raise construction of a road over bridge.

However, a perusal of the affidavit filed by Shri S.K. Mishra,

Project Director in the said PIL, which has been annexed by the

petitioners as Annexure-2, indicates that the lanes in question are

falling within 500 meters from the sensitive military installations.

The defence officials intimated the NHAI officials that construction

of the proposed over bridge would have an impact on the sensitive

military installations and could pose a threat to the national

security and thus, after getting served of this communication of

the defence officials, the NHAI officials were left with no option

except to review the over bridge in question.

(5 of 7) [CW-2642/2021]

We have perused the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the

Division Bench of this court in the writ petition filed by Parbat and

another and find that there is no indication in this order that the

NHAI would be constructing a road over bridge at the location in

question.

6. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties, the report

of the Court Commissioner Shri Devi Lal Vyas and the site plan

and DPRs placed on record, we find that widening of the highway

in question had been carried out strictly in accordance with the

National Highway Rules and the IRC Guidelines, 2014. While

finally arguing the matter, Shri Aidan Choudhary, learned counsel

representing the petitioners, only limited his arguments to the

non-construction of the slip lanes at certain portions of the roads,

however, Shri Sunil Joshi, Advocate representing the NHAI,

submitted that the requirement of constructing the slip lanes is

governed by the flow of the traffic. As per Shri Joshi, after taking

the complete traffic senses figures, the slip lanes had been

constructed in the urban areas adjoining the section of the

highway. The area of the road, which was referred to by the

petitioners' counsel alleging that the slip lanes have not been

constructed, is beyond the sanctioning stretch of the highways

and in the rural area where there is no requirement of

constructing the slip lanes. Despite that, the NHAI officials had

taken all the safety measures.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material

placed on record.

(6 of 7) [CW-2642/2021]

8. First of all, we would like to emphasize that the plea taken

by the petitioners' counsel that the NHAI has constructed the road

contrary to the assurance given in Writ Petition No.10749 is totally

unfounded. We have extensively considered the affidavit of Shri

S.K. Mishra, referred to supra, and find that in this affidavit, it was

emphatically mentioned that the proposal to construct the road

over bridge was not found viable because of the reservations

conveyed by the defence officials. It is not in dispute that the road

in question is very closeby to sensitive defence installations and

hence, any construction around such area would have to be

undertaken by keeping the interest and security of the defence

installations as a paramount consideration. After receiving the

affidavit of the NHAI official, the writ petition No.10749/2019 was

dismissed by this Court finding that all proposals of the road

widening were compliant of law. The petitioners have admittedly

filed the instant writ petition after the road widening and

construction of the highway was completed. After having

considered the submissions made at bar, this Court appointed Shri

Devi Lal Vyas as Court Commissioner and his report is sufficient to

satisfy the Court that construction of the road is being undertaken

strictly as per the applicable norms, rules and the Indian Road

Congress Guidelines, 2014.

9. The last ditch effort of the petitioners' counsel to question

the bonafides of the NHAI officials was pertaining to non-

construction of a slip lane. However, we find that the said

submission is also devoid of merit because slip lanes have been

constructed on both the sides of the road where the stretch

(7 of 7) [CW-2642/2021]

passes through the urban area. As has been pointed out by Shri

Joshi through an affidavit of the NHAI official, the construction of

the slip lane is dependent on the width of the road. The traffic

senses figures, which have been presented on record, would

clearly indicate that neither the width of the road nor the extent of

the slip lanes, are inadequate.

10. Thus, we find no merit in this writ petition which is

dismissed.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    Tikam Daiya/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)