JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, ACJ.—Both these writ petitions (CWP Nos. 220 of 2000 and 1359 of 2001) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these involve identical facts with identical prayers. 2. The petitioners are residents of village Tatta Pani, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi. They have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: 1. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6 may kindly be directed to stop the construction of bridge at the present site at river Satluj near Tatta Pani forthwith and start surveying a new alternative site. 2. That the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 may be directed not to attribute towards construction of proposed bridge at the present site being a wastage of public money. 3. The case set up by the petitioners is that the existing bridge over the river Satluj at Tatta Pani connects Shimla and Mandi Districts. It is 41.5 metres long and was built in the year 1961. It is still in good condition and presently all transportation of the area is made through this bridge. By the side of existing bridge there is an old bridge which was constructed by the Britishers long back. The span of old bridge is 38 metres and presently it is not used for the transportation of goods vehicle. 4. In the year 1998 a survey of the area was conducted by respondent No.2 with a view to construct another bridge as an alternative for transportation of heavy goods vehicles and markings for the alternative bridge adjacent to the existing with total span almost equal to the already existing bridge were made. At that time the residents of village Tatta Pani some of whom were having some Rehri business near the existing bridge represented to build the bridge on the old site which shall neither affect the local residents nor the Government shall be required to spend for acquisition of private land -since the old bridge is situated on the Government land. 5. On 23.8.1999 tender notice was published in "Divya Himachal" inviting tenders for construction of a bridge over the river Satluj with span of 82 metres from which the residents of village Tatta Pani came to know that the Government intend to build a bridge at a distant place from the existing bridge and span of proposed bridge is double than the alternative sites. The estimated cost of the cosntruction of the proposed bridge is about Rs. 250 lacs as against Rs. 78 lacs on the site adjacent to the existing bridge for which the residents were ready to give the land as a result of which the cost of the same would have reduced more than l/3rd of the estimated cost of the proposed bridge. Feeling aggrieved the residents of Tatta Pani made representation to the Chief Minister on 15.8.1999 and also met him in deputation and the issue was also highlighted by the print media but with no results. 6. On 26.2.2000 an agreement was executed between the Government and the National Thermal Power Corporation for construction of Hydro Electric Project named as "Kol Dam Project (800 M.W.)", as per news item published in "Amar Ujala" and "The Indian Express" on 27.2.2000. From the feasibility report of Kol Dam Project, Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, the reservoir of the Kol Dam will submerge the land up to the sea level of 648 metres, whereas the level of the existing bridge is 642 metres and the proposed bridge is also being built on almost same level. Therefore, both the bridges i.e. the existing bridge and the proposed bridge will certainly submerge in the reservior of Kol Dam and no useful purpose will be served by making construction of the proposed bridge. In this view of the matter the residents of Tatta Pani also made representation to respondent No. 4, the Chief General Manager NABARD, which is the agency financing the Government for the construction of Kol Dam including the proposed bridge, but it has also not taken any steps to find out the feasibility and economics of construction of proposed bridge at the site I selected by the Government. 7. The petitioners have further stated that as per agreement between National Thermal Power Corporation and the Government in the event of submergence of proposed bridge the National Thermal Power Corporation shall be under an obligation to pay compensation for the loss of the bridge, which can be saved if an alternative site is selected for the construction of proposed bridge. According to the petitioners, the construction of proposed bridge is at its initial stage and nothing has been spent on the site as yet. According to the petitioners, the construction of proposed bridge is at its initial stage and nothing has been spent on the site as yet. It is also stated that the construction work of the proposed bridge is allotted to respondent No. 6 Contractor. In nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that the proposed bridge is being cosntructed at a site which will submerge in Kol Dam and huge public money will be wasted. Therefore, they have prayed that the respondents may be directed to conduct fresh survey to select an alternative site for the proposed bridge. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 in their reply filed on the affidavit of Mr. Daljeet Singh Nirmohi, Superintending Engineer, 11th Circle H.P. P.W.D. Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, have raised preliminary objections that the petitioners have no locus standi to file and maintain the present writ petition and they have not come to the Court with clean hands. In fact the petitioners are running commercial establishments near the existing bridge and are apprehending that their business will be affected if the proposed bridge is constructed and traffic is diverted through it. It is explained that the proposed bridge will be cosntructed at a site which is about 200 metres up-stream to the existing bridge with 9 metres more height than the existing bridge and with a further scope to raise its height between 4 to 5 metres as per the requirement of the site for which provision has already been made in the agreement entered into between the Government and respondent No. 6. The Public Works Department has already spent approximately Rs. 35.93 lacs up to 31.5.2000 for development of the site and procurement of material for the proposed bridge. According to respondents 1 and 2, in all probabilities the proposed bridge, shall not submerge in Kol Dam, as per its proposed height. It is also stated that the height of existing bridge is 642 metres and the height of proposed bridge is 9 metres more i.e. 651 metres with further scope of raising its height between 4 to 5 metres, whereas, the top level of the Dam shall be 648 metres and maximum reservoir level/highest flood level is 646 metres and full supply level is 642 metres. Thus, these Data based factors will lead to unambiguous conclusion that the construction of the proposed bridge is technically most sound and feasible proposal and in public interest. It is denied that public interest will suffer by the construction of the proposed bridge. 9. On merits, it is stated that the existing bridge is a suspension bridge of steel and was constructed in the year 1961 which is a single lane carriage way and connects Shimla and Mandi Districts. As a result of constant use of the existing bridge, it has shown signs of distress requiring immediate cosntruction of another bridge. Accordingly, detailed drawings were prepared by the Department for examining and approving the best feasible site. Out of the different proposals sent to the Design Engineers of the department most suitable and technical proposal was approved where the proposed bridge is being constructed. The site of the old bridge lying at present abandoned having 38 metres span is not technically feasible and involves private lands whereas, the proposed bridge is being constructed on the Government land. According to respondents 1 and 2, the logic leading to the selection of the site for the proposed bridge which weighed with the Government is as under:— "(a) Dismantling the existing bridge for making space for new bridge would have disrupted the entire traffic on Shimla Mandi road (via Tatta Pani) which can be ill afforded. (b) Constructing new bridge just adjacent to the existing one would have endanger the old structure during the course of new construction. Besides for adjusting approaches of the bridge to, the required geometries meant displacement of commercial establishments, which have come up near the existing bridge, meaning thereby huge amount of compensation. (c) Since the existing bridge will get submerged in the reservoir as a result of construction of "Kol Dam", constructing new bridge at or near the same very location would result in loss of vital link between Shimla-Mandi and Kangra Districts. Cost of new bridge is thus not of much consequence considering the fact that maintaining this link is a paramount requirement. (d) There is sound strata for foundation. (e) The Deck level of the bridge would be about 9 metres higher than the existing bridge with further scope of increase between 4 to 5 metres as per requirement of site. Cost of new bridge is thus not of much consequence considering the fact that maintaining this link is a paramount requirement. (d) There is sound strata for foundation. (e) The Deck level of the bridge would be about 9 metres higher than the existing bridge with further scope of increase between 4 to 5 metres as per requirement of site. Thus saving it from submergence in water reservoir due to construction of "Kol Dam" as per present facts and circumstances. (f) The over all length of the road will be shortened by about 1/ 2 km. (g) The compensation for acquisition of land is not to be paid as no private land is involved." 10. Therefore, according to respondents 1 and 2, the decision to construct the proposed bridge has been taken in public interest and the petitioners are objecting to it with their selfish motive to save their commercial establishments and shops from being submerged in the Kol Dam. 11. In order to find out whether there is any substance in the allegations made by the petitioners, this Court vide order dated 16.4.2001 directed the Secretary, Public Works Department to file supplementary affidavit to state whether the proposed bridge will get submerged in the reservoir of Kol Dam which is intended to be constructed over Satluj River. In pursuance to the said order, the Secretary, Public Works Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh filed his affidavit stating that the matter was re-examined qua the technical feasibility and the probability of sumergence of the bridge site on pounding of water in the reservoir of Kol Dam. The Data as per the record depicts as under:— "I. Deck level of existing mortorable bridge. 633 mtrs. Above MSL II. Normal reservoir level of proposed Kol Dam 642 Mtrs. Above MSL III. Maximum reservoir level of the proposed Kol Dam 646 Mtrs. Above MSL IV. Deck level of the proposed new bridge (under construction) 648 Mtrs. AbSve MSL V. Highest flood level observed during August 2000 at the site of the proposed bridge 630 Mtrs. Above MSL". 12. On the basis of this Data the Secretary, PWD has concluded that the "probability of submerging of the proposed bridge at Tattapani over River Satluj does not exist." 13. Mr. AbSve MSL V. Highest flood level observed during August 2000 at the site of the proposed bridge 630 Mtrs. Above MSL". 12. On the basis of this Data the Secretary, PWD has concluded that the "probability of submerging of the proposed bridge at Tattapani over River Satluj does not exist." 13. Mr. Naveen Alagh, Senior Manager (Construction) National Thermal Power Corporation, respondent No. 3 has also filed short affidavit stating that as per the reply of the State Government the proposed bridge will not submerge in the Dam. It is further stated that as per the agreement, the maximum water level of the proposed Kol Dam is 646 metres above mean sea level and the top of the Dam is 648 metres above the mean sea level. 14. Respondent No. 6 contractor, who has been given the work of the proposed bridge has reiterated the stand of the Government and has added, that he has already spent a considerable amount and if the proposed bridge is ordered to be abandoned or stopped he will suffer huge monetary loss. It is further stated that he is a contractor of repute and the allegations made by the petitioners are false, frivolous and baseless and made with ulterior motive. He has been awarded the work on the basis of his standing and negotiations. 15. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply of respondents 1 and 2 reiterating their stand in the writ petition and denied the contrary statements made in the reply. 16. On these pleadings the learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the proposed bridge is being constructed at a site which is neither technically .sound nor economic as it is bound to submerge in the Kol Dam resulting in huge monetary loss which can be saved if the respondents are directed to make a fresh survey and select an alternative site. 17. On the other hand, learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Counsel for other respondents have argued that the apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded and on the basis of material on record there is no likelihood that the proposed bridge will submerge in Kol Dam. 17. On the other hand, learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Counsel for other respondents have argued that the apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded and on the basis of material on record there is no likelihood that the proposed bridge will submerge in Kol Dam. As per the submission of the learned Advocate General, the petitioners intend to serve their self interest that if the proposed bridge is constructed near their establishments and shops the traffic shall C9ntinue passing through them and their business will not suffer. Learned Advocate General has further stressed that there are no reasons to disbelieve the stand of the Government that on the basis of Data available the proposed bridge will not submerge as it is being constructed 200 metres up stream to the existing bridge with 9 metres more height than the existing bridge which comes to 651 metres above sea level and with a further scope to raising its height between 4 to 5 metres, whereas, the maximum reservoir level of the proposed Kol Dam is 646 metres above MSL (mean sea level). 18. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. On the basis of material on record the apprehension of the petitioners that the proposed bridge will submerge in the Kol Dam does not appear to be well founded. We have no reason to disbelieve the affidavits filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that on the basis of material on record there is no likelihood of the proposed bridge submerging in Kol Dam. We are not technical experts to over-rule the technical opinion given by the Engineers and Technocrats. Whether a new bridge is required to be constructed and if, yes, where it is to be constructed is a policy decision which is the function of the executive. By now, it is well settled that unless the policy decision is mala fide or in conflict with law it will not be in public interest for the Courts to interfere. Keeping in view this principle, we do not find it a fit case to interfere. 19. By now, it is well settled that unless the policy decision is mala fide or in conflict with law it will not be in public interest for the Courts to interfere. Keeping in view this principle, we do not find it a fit case to interfere. 19. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and others, (2000) 10 SCC 664, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held in para 229:— "It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The Court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and peoples fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means over run in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them." In para 233:— "At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their power judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their power judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the court ought to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the court itself is not above the law." And in para 234:— "In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government, the courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in the public interest to require the court to go into and investigate those areas which are the functions of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertakings of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision/ [Emphasis supplied] 20. The ratio of the judgment in Common Cause a registered qociety v. Union of India and others, (1999) 6 SCC 667 cited, by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no application in the case in hand. 21. The ratio of the judgment in Common Cause a registered qociety v. Union of India and others, (1999) 6 SCC 667 cited, by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no application in the case in hand. 21. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in these writ petitions and these are rejected. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -