Judgment S. K. Homchaudhuri, G. S. Sharma, JJ. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has approached this Court by way of a public interest litigation with the following prayer: "for issuance of appropriate writs, order (s) and direction (s) by way of mandamus or any other writs to the respondents to construct the road within Ranchi municipal Corporation area ward No.1 to 37 by not mix plant specially in the area of suiata Chowk to Kadru, Ashok Nagar daladali Road to Argora Chowk, to Dibdi near Lohardaga Railway Line, Argora chowk to Harmu Road upto burning ghat both side road excluding the by pass-road, chutia road and all the roads on municipal Corporation area which are badly damaged since last so many years and also construct the Nail (drainage) side the road. " 2. Public interest litigation has come to stay. Each and every failure and/or omission to discharge the public duty/obligation on the part of the public servant, public body or public authority, no doubt affects the interest of the public adversely in this way or that way. But all grievances arising out of omission and/or commission on the part of the public seryant, public body or public authority cannot be espoused in a court by way of public interest litigation. There should be restraint on the part of the public interest litigants. We are of the view that public interest may be espoused by way of public interest litigation in the rarest of the rare cases where omission or commission on the part of the public servant or public authority entails gross violation of fundamental rights of the citizens and/or invades the human rights, which shocks the judicial conscience. In this connection, it is ap-1 propriate to refer to the paras 58, 59 and 60 of the judgment of the Hon ble the Supreme Court passed in the case of shri Sachidanand Pandey and anr. V/s. The state of West Bengal and ors. (reported in AIR 1987 SC 1109 ) wherein in paras 58, 59 and 60 the Hon ble Supreme court observed as follows: "58. My purpose in adding these few line of my own is to highlight the need for restraint on the part of the public interest litigants when they move courts. Public interest litigation has now come to stay. (reported in AIR 1987 SC 1109 ) wherein in paras 58, 59 and 60 the Hon ble Supreme court observed as follows: "58. My purpose in adding these few line of my own is to highlight the need for restraint on the part of the public interest litigants when they move courts. Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do not restrict trie free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. " "59. I should not be understood to say that traditional litigation should stay put. They have to be tackled by other effective methods, like decentralising the judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to village Courts and lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and by a complete restructuring of the procedural law which is the villian in delaying disposal of cases. " "60. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the under (sic) and the neglected, I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants. " 3. On perusal of the complaints made in this petition, we find that there is very little scope to espouse the grievances narrated in the writ petition by way of public interest litigation. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants. " 3. On perusal of the complaints made in this petition, we find that there is very little scope to espouse the grievances narrated in the writ petition by way of public interest litigation. However, in view of the fact that counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos.5, 7,8 and 9 we are of the view that at this belated stage, the petitioner may not be told off on the question of maintainability of the petition. 4. Respondent No.5, Dy. Commissioner, ranchi, in paras 5,6 and 8 of the counter-affidavit has contended as follows: "5. That it is submitted that the construction/repair of roads and drains in ranchi town are primarily the outlook of p. W. D. (Roads), R. R. D. A. and Ranchi municipal Corporation. Under the present system of working in R. R. D. A. there exists a Board under the Chairmanship of Chairman, r. R. D. A. which takes ultimate decisions about the construction/repair of roads and drains in Ranchi town. It is only on the basis of the recommendation of this Board that the roads and drain schemes are executed in the town by the chairman, R. R. D. A. " "6. That the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is also independent in the selection of development schemes pertaining to Ranchi town. Road construction/repair schemes are selected by the Ranchi municipal Corporation as per its own decision and priorities and executed accordingly. " "8. That it is respectfully submitted that as far as funds received by the deputy Commissioner from Government for Urban Development is concerned, it is received only through Planning Department for implementation of the District plan. For last two years only Rs.47.68 lacs have been received from the Planning D epartment. Of the total fund received under District Plan, only 15% be spent in Urban areas on certain development schemes. " 5. Respondent No.7, Vice Chairman, ranchi Regional Development authority (R. R. D. A.) in paras 7,8,9,10 and 11 in the counter- affidavit has contended as follows: "7. That with regard to the reliefs claimed in para-1 of the writ application, I say and submit that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as against the answering respondent. " 5. Respondent No.7, Vice Chairman, ranchi Regional Development authority (R. R. D. A.) in paras 7,8,9,10 and 11 in the counter- affidavit has contended as follows: "7. That with regard to the reliefs claimed in para-1 of the writ application, I say and submit that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as against the answering respondent. At the very outset, i say and submit that all the roads falling within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Municipal corporation does not belong to the answering respondent, R. R. D. A. All the road either belong to Ranchi Municipal corporation or PWD (Road Construction department ). In any view of the matter, the answering respondent can construct roads only if funds are provided by the government or any other agencies. " "8. That I say and submit that the road from Sujata Chowk to Kadru Chowk belongs to Road Construction Department, pw. D. So far the roads of Ashok nagar Daladili Road to Argora Chowk is concerned, this road was constructed by the respondent-authority four years back. Thereafter the Municipal Corporation had done repair work in 1994. Due to paucity of fund, the authority has not done any work since last four years. " "9. That I submit that the road beside lohardaga line in village, Debadih, the work was completed by the respondent no.4 in March, 1995. " "10. That I further say and submit that so far construction of road of Argora chowk to Harmu Chowk is concerned, estimate was made by the respondent No.4 and letter has been sent to Regional development Commissioner for fund. As soon as the fund is received the work will be started. So far other roads are concerned, as stated above, no funds for improving of the roads have been made available to the respondent Authority who is to keep all the road in motorable condition. " "11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ application, I say and submit that the responsibility of the respondent Authority for the construction or repair of roads depend only if funds are made available to the authority either by the Government or by other agencies. " 6. " "11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ application, I say and submit that the responsibility of the respondent Authority for the construction or repair of roads depend only if funds are made available to the authority either by the Government or by other agencies. " 6. Respondent Nos.8 and 9, Executive engineer, Road Division (P. W. D.), ranchi, and Chief Engineer, (Road division) P. W. D. , Ranchi, in paras 5,6,7, 8,9,10,12,13,14 and 15 of the counter-affidavit nave contended as follows: "5. That it is respectfully stated and submitted that the road in question, i. e. to say Daladili road from Kadru to argora is not within the jurisdiction of the answering respondents and the same falls within the jurisdiction of the ranchi Municipal Corporation and as such the answering respondents are not in a position to carry out any repair/construction over the said road. " "6. That it is respectfully stated and submitted that the Road commonly known as Main Road (Ranchi Chaibasa Road)stretching to 8 kilometres from office of the Divisional Commissioner, South chhotanagpur Division to Birsa Chowk falls under the jurisdiction of answering respondents and as such for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 the said road falling within the Ranchi Municipal Area was constructed by Hot Mix Plant. " "7. That It is respectfully stated and submitted that the entire road falling within the jurisdiction of Road Construction department within the Municipal limit of ranchi Municipal Corporation will be constructed. by Hot Mix Plant and a decision to this effect has been taken by the answering respondents. " "8. That apart from the above roads, the Roads known as Ranchi-Chaibasa road via Rajendra Chowk to Mecon office has also been repaired by Mini Hot Mix plant. " "9. That Ranchi-Daltonganj Road, ranchi-Bariatu Road, Ranchi-Patratu Road and approaching road to Government house, Radium Road, Namkum-Doranda road, Ranchi Hazaribagh Road from jamuar bridge to Firayaial Chowk via kokar Chowk, Namkum Cantonment road, Old Hazaribagh Road from Bihar state Road Transport Corporation Depot to Kokar Chowk via Kanta Toli Chowk will be constructed by Hot Mix Plant on priority basis depending upon the availability of the fund. " "10. That Ranchi, Purulia Road from dangra Toli to Namkum stretching upto 1.5 kilometres have been constructed by the Hot Mix Plant. " "12. " "10. That Ranchi, Purulia Road from dangra Toli to Namkum stretching upto 1.5 kilometres have been constructed by the Hot Mix Plant. " "12. That it is respectfully stated and submitted that no fund has been sanctioned for the construction of the roads in the year 1995-96 and as such no repair or construction of the roads could be taken in the current financial year. " "13. That the answering respondents respectfully state and submit that they have marked the roads mentioned hereinabove in the priority basis and as soon as the fund will be made available, the construction work will be taken up on the priority basis. " "14. That the answering respondents respectfully state and submit that as stated earlier, the Road stretching between from Kadru to Argora known as Daladili road is not within the jurisdiction of the answering respondent and the same falls within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Municipal corporation and as such the answering respondents are not in a position to carry out any repair/construction over the said road. " "15. That, as stated above, it is not out of place to mention here that no fund has been sanctioned for the construction of the roads in the year 1995-96 and hence no repair or construction of the roads could be taken in the current financial year. As soon as the fund is made available, the roads earlier, which have already been marked In the priority list, will be taken up on the priority basis. " 7. From the contentions made in the counter-affidavits by the respondents, it becomes apparent that for want of necessary fund, the construction and repair of the roads in question were not carried out. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, we dispose of this petition with the direction that respondents Nos.6,.7,8 and 9 will make estimates pf the construction and repair of the roads in question, for construction and maintenance which they are responsible for, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall approach the appropriate authority of the concerned department of the Government to release necessary fund for carrying out the construction and repair of the roads in question expeditiously. Order Accordingly.