Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 59 (MP)

PREM NARAYAN PATEL v. STATE OF M. P.

2004-01-21

KUMAR RAJARATNAM, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2004
ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. Petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person has filed this writ petition in the public interest praying for the following reliefs : (i) To command the respondents to immediate stop making construction on route shown by blue colour in map Annexure P/1 joining Manakwara to S.H. 15 through village Devi and Parasia of Tahsil Silwani, district Raisen, and further. (ii) To command the respondents to construct the Road under "Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna" as per master plan etc. referred to above joining village Manakwara to S.H. 15 through villages Khamariya and Chiraha, Tahsil Silwani, District Raisen shown with blue colour in map Ann. P/1. (iii) The respondent No. 3, i.e., the State of M.P. be commanded to vacate the land in its occupation in any form whatsoever belonging to the respondent No. 1 and earmarked for aerodrome. It be further commanded to remove all encroachments by private persons so made by them upon the land earmarked for the aerodrome. (iv) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner be also granted. (v) Cost of the petition be also granted to the petitioner. As per the averments made by the petitioner in the petition, in order to improve the social and economic conditions of the villagers the Central Government had introduced a scheme known as "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna" (hereafter referred to as 'PMGSY') under which roads were to be constructed to benefit the villagers living in interior parts so that they can get road connectivity by good all-weather roads. To implement PMGSY in Raisen District the detail survey was made and a master plan was prepared, according to which a road from State Highway No. 15 to Manakwara village was sanctioned through village Khamaria and Chirah. But to the shock and surprise to the petitioner the respondents have decided to change the plan and instead of the above referred road the respondents approved the road from Manakwara to State Highway No. 15 through village Deni and Padaria. As per the petitioner the road joining Manakwara to S.H. 15 through village Khamaria and Chirah was sanctioned after a thorough survey and was approved by the Zila Panchayat and also by the Planning Committee and, therefore, such abrupt change of it by the respondents was not permissible. As per the petitioner the road joining Manakwara to S.H. 15 through village Khamaria and Chirah was sanctioned after a thorough survey and was approved by the Zila Panchayat and also by the Planning Committee and, therefore, such abrupt change of it by the respondents was not permissible. It has also been averred by the petitioner that the change of route is not in the public interest. It has further been averred that the habitants of villages Khamaria and Chirah have been illegally deprived of by the road facility. The change in the plan to construct the road through other villages is only because of political reasons and the same being arbitrary exercise of powers deserves to be quashed. The respondents have filed their return and have denied any arbitrariness or mala fide in their action. It has been stated in their return that the guidelines issued about the implementation of the PMGSY have been duly complied with, which envisages that after the receipt of road plans from all the blocks it has to be scrutinized by Chief Executive of the District Planning Committee/Chief Executive Officer/District Collector to be assisted by a Committee comprising of the Head of the Programme Implementation Unit, Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service (Member Secretary) and senior officials of the Revenue/Rural Development Department, as Members. They are required to look into the deviations, if any, made by the intermediate Panchayat and the justification therefore. They must ensure that the Road Plan is according to the Road Index, calculated as per the proposals of M.Ps. and M.L. As have been duly considered. If any provision made by Intermediate Panchayat of the Committee preparing the original plan is not as per the guidelines such provision should be changed, the reasons, thereof should be mentioned clearly. As per respondents it is within the ambit of the competent authority to modify the plan in the interest of the habitation as per the guidelines. It has been further stated that there are two routes available to connect village Manakwara. One is via habitations of Khamariya and Chirah and other one is via Deni and Padaria. The length of these routes to connect Manakwara is 6 k.ms. (via Chirah-Khamaria) and 5.50 k.m. (via Deni-Padariya) respectively. It has been further stated that there are two routes available to connect village Manakwara. One is via habitations of Khamariya and Chirah and other one is via Deni and Padaria. The length of these routes to connect Manakwara is 6 k.ms. (via Chirah-Khamaria) and 5.50 k.m. (via Deni-Padariya) respectively. The local public representatives pointed out that the construction of road through Deni and Padaria would be more beneficial as more number of people would be benefitted and the distance will also be shorter in comparison to the earlier sanctioned route. Intermediate Panchayat (Janpad Panchayat Silwani) had also passed a resolution in their meeting dated 17-10-2001 that the village Manakwara be connected to S.H. 15 via Deni and Padaria only. The road index calculations of both the routes were also examined on the basis of parameters assigned by Jila Panchayat and it was found that the construction of road through village Deni and Padaria would be fully as per guidelines of PMGSY. There were representations from different sections of the people representatives and Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayat including the Incharge Minister of Raisen. The respondents further averred in their return that on this disputed issue the opinion of Jila Panchayat of Raisen was sought and it also recommended the construction of road via villages Deni and Padaria and therefore, the decision was taken to construct the road through villages Deni and Padaria. It was further submitted by the respondents that the earlier proposed route was benefitting only 650 persons whereas the present connectivity of villages Deni and Padaria would benefit 1070 persons. The respondents accordingly justified their action and prayed for dismissal of the petition. We have heard Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State and perused the record. After going through the record and considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition has no merit. It is not disputed before us and is also clear from the record that earlier the respondents have prepared a master plan for the construction of the Road under 'PMGSY' for joining Manakwara to S.H. 15 via villages Khamaria and Chirah but the said plan was changed and the road was proposed to be constructed from Manakwara village to S.H. 15 via villages Deni and Padaria. The guidelines issued for construction for roads under PMGSY Annexure R-3 provides in Chapter 3 provision 3.2 which reads as under: 3.2 After the Rural Roads Plan have been received from all the Blocks, the same would be scrutinized by the Chief Executive of the District Planning Committee/Chief Executive Officer/District Collector. He would be assisted by a committee comprising of the Head of the District Programme Implementation Unit (Member Secretary), Superintending Engineer/Executive Engineer PWD, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service and Senior Officers of the Revenue/Rural Development Departments, as Members. They should look into the deviations, if any, made by the Intermediate Panchayat and the justification therefor. They must ensure that the Road Plan is according to the Road Index, calculated as per the weightages fixed by District Panchayat, and also the proposals of the MPs and MLAs have been duly considered. If any provision made by Intermediate Panchayat or the Committee preparing the original plan, is not as per the guidelines, such provisions should be changed. The reasons, thereof should be mentioned clearly. The method to calculate the Road Index is described in Provision 2.31 of guidelines of PMGSY which reads as under: 2.31 The Road Index can be calculated by taking the Utility Value (UV) of the Habitation providing the requisite services to the Unconnected Habitation and dividing it by the length of the proposed road link. The link having the highest Road Index should be selected. Road Index = UV/L Where, UV = Utility Value and L= Length of the proposed road link. Perusal of the aforesaid guidelines clearly indicates that after receipts of the rural roads plan the same is required to be scrutinized by the authority mentioned in guideline 3.2 and the plan can be deviated to if the same is not as per the guidelines. As per the respondents there were two routes available to connect village Manakwara from S.H. 15. After considering the road index as per guidelines it was found that the route via villagers Deni and Padaria is of shorter distance and it is having higher road index and, therefore, complying the guidelines the plan was changed so as to construct the road via villages Deni and Padaria. As per respondents the change was made also considering the recommendations of the local public representatives, Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat and the guidelines of PMGSY were duly followed. As per respondents the change was made also considering the recommendations of the local public representatives, Janpad Panchayat and Jila Panchayat and the guidelines of PMGSY were duly followed. On due consideration we find that the aforesaid change of the plan by the respondents for the construction of road under PMGSY was not based on any mala fide and the said change is also not arbitrary, irrational, unfair or unreasonable. On the other hand from the documents placed on record by the respondents we find that the change of the alignment of the route for the construction of road was based on strong and cogent reasons necessitating change in view of the guidelines. We find that the authorities on the basis of road index have found it to be more beneficial in the larger public interest to construct the road via villages Deni and Padaria. The connectivity through these villages was found to serve more people as compared to the earlier route. In that view of the matter no interference is called for in the said decision of the respondents. We have also been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that major work with regard to construction of the road via villages Deni and Padaria under the said PMGSY has already been done. In that view of the matter also we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. At this juncture it is apposite to refer the pronouncements of the Supreme Court passed while dealing with the scope of judicial interference in the policy decisions of the government. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, has considered the scope of judicial review in policy decision of the government and has laid down that it is not within the province of judiciary to test the correctness of a policy or to lay down whether such policy sought to be changed or to remain static as long as policy is not tainted with mala fides, arbitrariness, irrational perversity, unfairness and unreasonableness. In the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association and Others Vs. In the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), the Supreme Court has held that matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise would be matters for decision of those qualified to address the issues and the policy or the action of the government will not be subject to judicial review unless it is inconsistent with Constitution or laws or is arbitrary or irrational. In the case Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. International Trading Co. and Another, has observed that while the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power is wide enough when not trammelled by any statute or rule, what is imperative and implicit is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. Testing the factual matrix on the anvil of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the respondents' decision to change the alignment of the route for the construction of road suffers from no infirmity. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Security amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him after due verification. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from giving a representation to the State Government. If such a representation is given to the State Government, the State Government shall consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. Final Result : Dismissed