Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Lal Snehi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 30 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
30th AUGUST, 2022
WPPIL No.18 OF 2020
Dinesh Lal Snehi ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Bhupendra
Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
With
WPPIL No.32 OF 2020
Mukesh Barthwal ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep
Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Bhupendra
Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
These two writ petitions have been preferred in
public interest, raising a grievance with regard to laying of
the Water Pipeline through the Supana Bridge by the
respondent-Pey Jal Department of the State of
Uttarakhand.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the
Supana Bridge is an old Bridge meant for people to
commute across the Alaknanda River. Laying of water
pipeline has reduced the width of the bridge as also its
load carrying capacity. On that account, the petitioners
seek removal of the pipeline from the Supana Bridge so
that the same can be restored for its original use.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to a report
filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirti Nagar dated
07.02.2020, to submit that the water pipeline, which has
been laid, is 3 meters wide. With the laying of the said
pipeline, the width of the available road for commuting
has been reduced to only about 4 meters, which was
earlier 7 meters. Moreover, the Pipeline is loading the
Bridge by about 40 metric tons, thereby reducing the load
carrying capacity of the Bridge, which was 65-70 meters.
Thus, the heavy vehicle cannot ply on the Bridge with the
laying of the said pipeline. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate
also noticed that the Bridge was earlier being used by
heavy vehicles to carry materials for construction and
2
development purposes by the stone crushers and during
rescue operations. The report of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate suggests that the pipeline should not be laid on
the Supana Bridge.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-State has drawn attention of this Court to the
order dated 03.03.2020, which reads as follows:-
"Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition;
firstly whether it was necessary for the respondents to lay
a pipeline over the Supana Bridge which is being used for
transportation of goods by heavy vehicles for the past
more than three decades; and secondly, whether the
alternate Bridge, which the respondents claim can be used
instead, has wide enough roads to carry such heavy
vehicles for transportation of goods.
While the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, claims that it was wholly unnecessary for
the respondents to lay a pipeline over the bridge, and
that drinking water could have been supplied through an
alternate route, this question necessitates examination,
within the limited parameters of judicial review, on the
respondents placing material before this Court explaining
why they choose to lay a pipeline over the bridge and not
elsewhere.
With regards the respondents' claim that the
alternate bridge can be effectively used for transportation
of goods, the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner
is that, while the bridge may by itself be able to carry the
load of heavy vehicles passing through it, the road, leading
to the bridge, on both sides is not wide enough to permit
movement of heavy vehicles to and from the bridge.
Since these matters necessitate enquiry, we direct the
District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal to cause an enquiry into
these aspects; and submit a report to this Court at the
earliest and, in any event, within 10 days from today.
Post on 16.3.2020 in the daily list.
The reply affidavit, on behalf of the Uttarakhand
Power Corporation Ltd., may be filed in the Registry in the
meanwhile."
5. In pursuance of the said order, the Committee,
constituted for the purpose of examining the issues raised
by the Court, has filed its Joint Inspection Report dated
3
06.03.2020. This report discloses that the water pipeline
was necessary since the quantity of water, available in
river Alaknanda, had reduced on account of the
construction of the Hydel Project. So as to supply drinking
water to the villagers having population of 1.5 lakh, the
said pipeline had to be laid. The water carrying capacity of
the pipeline is sufficient to serve about 2.10 lakh people in
the area. Laying of water pipeline, over Supana Bridge,
was found to be technically feasible. Pertinently, the
report discloses that just 2 kilometers away from the
Supana Bridge, a new Bridge has been constructed called
as 'Chauras Motor Bridge', which is built to cater to heavy
vehicular traffic. Thus, the people, at large, are not, in
any way, prejudiced, and traffic movement of vehicles is
still feasible, even though the Supana Bridge cannot be
put to use for transportation for heavy vehicles.
6. We have enquired from learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners whether they have made the
disclosure with regard to the existence of the said
alternate Bridge at a distance of 2 kilometers in the writ
petition. There is no disclosure with regard to the said
material and relevant fact. In our view, the petitioners are
guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts.
Pertinently, even the report of the Sub-Divisional
4
Magistrate, relied upon by the petitioners, does not
mention the existence of the alternate bridge which is just
2 kilometers away to cater to the heavy vehicular traffic.
7. It is unfortunate that the petitioners are seeking
to object to the creation of the infrastructure to provide
drinking water to the local population of about 1.5 lakhs,
and that too, without making full and complete disclosure
in the writ petition.
8. We, therefore, dismiss these writ petitions with
costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each, to be deposited
with the State Legal Services Authority, within two weeks.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 30th August, 2022
SK
