In Chairman, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited vs. Shambhu Prasad Gupta & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy condoned the delay of 740 days in preferring an appeal. Notably, the 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 because a writ petition and contempt petition was kept pending by a Single Judge of the High Court after the State challenged the order passed by the Writ Court. The issue relates to the construction of Rail Over Bridge (ROB) in the Saharsa district. CWJC No. 4961 refers to Shambhu Prasad Gupta vs. The Union of India case.
The writ petitioner had sought 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. The Writ Court had directed the respondents to re-consider shifting or changing the alignments and also include the writ petitioner in its discussions but writ petition was not included in the meeting held to deliberate upon it.
The judgement records that the Railway Administration found the plan and the design suggested by the petitioner to be unfeasible for the reason of safety and durability of the ROB.
The writ petitioner submitted 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 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.
The division bench observed:"We are afraid such was not the prayer in the writ petition. 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. We are of the considered view that a mandamus could be issued only for enforcing a right and not for adjudication of rights."
It further noted:"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 writ petitioner to be absolutely unviable."
In its concluding para, the Court judgement reads: "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."
Prior to this Justice Sandeep Kumar had heard the case Shambhu Prasad Gupta vs. The Union of India (2022) and passed his first order dated July 6, 2022 saying, "No demolition shall be carried out till the next date of hearing." In his order dated September 5, 2022, he wrote:"In the facts of the case, it is desirable that the respondents meet once and discuss the matter in detail to find out a solution. It is expected that the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur have a meeting and take a decision in the matter considering the facts of the case....The respondents will bring on record the decision taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur on the next date of hearing. Let this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur through FAX and e-Mail for its compliance forthwith. And their respective lawyers will also communicate the order of this Court to them. It is expected that the all the facts which have been raised by the petitioner shall considered by the respondents in their meeting."
In his order dated October 18. 2022, he wrote that the counsel for the Railway should apprise the Court "about the decision taken by the authorities so that the construction is made in such manner that public and government do not suffer." In his order dated November 22, 2022 wrote that the counsel for the Railways "will seek instructions from the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur as to minimum time required for comprehensive study of traffic flow and integration of Railway Over Bridge (ROB) with future station development, which has been suggested in the meeting held on 08.11.2022 for construction of Railway Over Bridge (ROB) at Saharsa and possibility of planning of a subway."
In his order dated November 28, 2022, he wrote:"Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited has filed a supplementary counter affidavit which is taken on record. Paragraph 7 thereof reads as follows:“7. That, however in view of the observation made by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.09.2022, the respondents have reviewed the possibilities of deviation from the alignment of the proposed plan and have come up with the revised new alignment where under both arms of earlier alignments of the proposed plant at T-point Junction of Shenker Chowk (one arm in north direction towards Supaul District via D.B. Road and another one in sought direction towards Bangaon Maheshi via Bengali Bazar) have been removed and now one new arm has been designed under the new alignment which will pass towards Sarharsa Railway station via Sabjimandi, Saharsa which is evident from the General Arrangement of Drawing (GAD) of the new/revised alignment for the proposed ROB. Under the new/revised alignment, the issues involved in the present case have been looked in to (sic) and efforts have been made to sort out those issues.” His order reads: "List this case after three months for further hearing. On the next date of hearing, the Corporation will inform the Court about progress in the construction of the Railway, as per new proposal, as has been quoted above."
In his penultimate order dated January 20, 2025, High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed: "A piquant situation has arisen for the reason of several proceedings remaining pending before a learned Single Judge, which in net effect has delayed even the commencement of the work of construction of Road Over Bridge (ROB) at a particular place in the district of Saharsa. One Shambhu Prasad Gupta had approached the High Court vide CWJC No. 4961 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondents to review and shift the proposed plan of construction of ROB at Level Crossing No. 31 situated near Saharsa Railway Station from its present place to the Level Crossing No. 32, situated near the old bus stand, Ganjala or at some more convenient place/area or to shift or redesign the proposed approach road connecting the ROB to some other place by saving the main market place of Saharsa town. The writ petition was entertained by the learned Single Judge, who thought it to be desirable to direct the respondents to discuss the issue with aforenoted Shambhu Prasad Gupta/writ petitioner and find out a solution."
The division bench wondered:"We are afraid whether such objections by a citizen could have been entertained. Nonetheless, considering the direction and the expectation of the learned Single Judge, a meeting was held but the writ petitioner was not called in that meeting. However, the other part of the order dated 05.09.2022 indicates that the respondents were asked to bring on record the decision taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department and the other respondents on the next date of hearing. The writ petition but was kept pending. The records reveal that even though the writ petitioner was not called in any one of the meetings, an attempt was made by the authorities to review the plan and a proposal was formulated which was sent to the Railways for further confirmation before the process of construction could have been resumed. It further appears from the record that the Railways found such changed proposal to be untenable for very many reasons."
The division bench recorded: "Thereafter a contempt petition was filed before the learned Single Judge vide MJC No. 2175 of 2023, which is also pending consideration. However, in the meantime, a supplementary affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of the State stating that in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge on 05.09.2022, the respondents reviewed the possibilities of deviation from the alignment of the proposed plan and came up with a revised new alignment where under both arms of earlier alignments of the proposed plan at T point junction of Shankar Chowk have been removed and now one new arm has been designed under the new alignment, which will pass towards Saharsa Railway Station via Vegetable Market, Saharsa. This was part of the General Arrangement for Drawing (GAD) of the new revised alignment for the proposed ROB. The supplementary affidavit further indicated that efforts are afoot to sort out the other pending issues as well. The revised GAD was sent to the Railways for affirmation but as noted above the same was not approved. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.11.2022, which is the subject order of appeal, extracted this part of the supplementary affidavit of the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after three months with a direction that on the next date of hearing, the Corporation will inform the Court about the progress of the construction of the ROB as per new proposal."
Justice Ashutosh Kumar led bench observed: "we do not find any reason to understand that the order comes in the way of the respondents continuing with their construction process as no embargo has been placed in any one of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, either in the writ petition or in the contempt petition. However, the impact of such orders and the pendency of the writ petition has prevented the respondents and the Railways in continuing with the process of construction of ROB which enures in nobody’s favour. There are certain limitations in reviewing the design of such projects. The safety requirements also have to be taken into account which perhaps cannot be adjudicated in any writ petition. All that the writ petitioner can expect, in any circumstance, is that his grievance is put through the concerned authorities who would take a call and, if possible, formulate a solution which would neither be destructive of the plan nor would cause any inconvenience to the writ petitioner or many others as claimed."
The division bench concluded: "We, therefore, request the learned Single Judge to decide all the issues and conclude the proceedings within a period of two weeks of the communication of this order to him. To facilitate this process, we direct for the listing of CWJC No. 4961 of 2022 and M.J.C. No. 2175 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge, who is hearing the contempt petition, on 27.1.2025 within first five cases. Let this appeal come up for consideration on 04.02.2025."
In his order dated January 27, 2025, Justice Sandeep Kumar wrote: "Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned A.S.G. for the Union of India; Dr. K.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Pul Nigam; Mr. Nadim Seraj and learned counsel for the intervenor; Sri Sanjay Kumar. These matters have been listed before this Court pursuant to the order of the Division Bench dated 20.01.2025 passed in LPA No. 1259 of 2024. Once the writ petition i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 4961 of 2022 was recalled by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.2024 passed in LPA No. 1259 of 2024, this Court does not think it desirable to hear the matter again. Let these matters be go out of my list and be placed before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for assigning a new Bench." Notably, Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed in the High Court on December 13, 2024 and registered December 16, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy passed an order saying: Post along with C.W.J.C. No.4961 of 2022 immediately after holidays."
The order dated February 4, 2025, the division bench of High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed: "Let C.W.J.C. No.4961 of 2022 and M.J.C. No.2175 of 2023 be listed along with this appeal on 10.02.2025."
No comments:
Post a Comment