Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 691 (KAR)

C. Nagaraju v. Union of India

2008-11-11

P.D.DINAKARAN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2008
JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, CJ. The petitioner, a retired government servant and a senior citizen has filed the above public interest litigation complaining that the National Highways and State Highways in the State of Karnataka are unsafe and unworthy for travelling.According to the petitioner even though the respondents-l, 2 and 4 are duty bound to survey construct, develop and maintain the National Highways in the State of Karnataka, they neglect their duty. It is further complained that even though under Article 47 of the Constitution of India, State has a duty to raise the level of standard of living which includes a duty to provide safe road for worthy transportation, the respondents have disowned the said obligation and therefore, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to survey, construct, develop and maintain the National and State Highways and thereby save the lives and properties of the people of Karnataka and render the larger public good and promote economic justice in the state of Karnataka. 2. Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of respondents-l and 2 and Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of respondents-3 and 4. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, for the development, construction and maintenance of the Highways both National and State and to execute the same in accordance with law, a decision in this regard is being taken by the respective departments of the respective governments taking into consideration the several factors such as the need of the locality, the condition of the existing Highways, availability of allotment of the funds by the respective governments etc., of course subject to the challenge made by the parties aggrieved by such action of the respective governments. 4. We have given our careful consideration to the submission of both sides. We have carefully gone through the averments made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner based on this personal knowledge and experience has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to survey, construct, develop and maintain the National and State Highways and thereby save the lives and properties of the people of Karnataka and render the larger public good and promote economic justice in the state of Karnataka. The petitioner based on this personal knowledge and experience has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to survey, construct, develop and maintain the National and State Highways and thereby save the lives and properties of the people of Karnataka and render the larger public good and promote economic justice in the state of Karnataka. But we find the prayer as sought for is not specific and on the other hand the same in general in nature. If that be so, it may not be appropriate for this Court to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ as prayed for, as otherwise it will be a futile exercise of the power of judicial review by this Court. It is no doubt true that wherever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act of omission of the State, any member of the public, having "sufficient interest" and acting bona fide, can maintain an action of redressal of such public wrong or public injury and that the public interest litigations are entitled to make the Executive to do what it ought to do.But in the instant case, as already observed by us, the grievance and the relief sought for are general and vague in nature. On the other hand the relief sought depends upon various factors such as (1) the need of the locality (2) the conditions of the existing roads (3) financial implication such as availability of and allotment of the funds and more than that, development planning by competent authorities. These matters, in our considered opinion fall, strictly within the purview of the Executive. Even though public interest demands that the State shall ensure its subjects to raise the level of standard of living, the Court at the best can only by way of judicial activism bring to the notice of the Executive the grievance expressed by the public in this regard and set the ball in motion. But while exercising the power for judicial activism the Court should also act with restraint without barging into the jurisdiction of the Executive as the Constitution in clear terms demarcates the powers and jurisdiction of the three wings of the State viz., Legislature, Executive, Judiciary prescribing the rights and duties and obligations of the respective wings. 6. But while exercising the power for judicial activism the Court should also act with restraint without barging into the jurisdiction of the Executive as the Constitution in clear terms demarcates the powers and jurisdiction of the three wings of the State viz., Legislature, Executive, Judiciary prescribing the rights and duties and obligations of the respective wings. 6. We therefore, are of the considered opinion that it may not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the above public interest litigation and to issue a writ as prayed for, except to permit the petitioner to make necessary representation to the respondents inviting their attention as to the need of the public and in which event the respondents shall consider such representations and proceed in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.