Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1569 (JHR)

Lakhan Chandra Mardi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-10

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, R.R.PRASAD

body2009
Order This writ petition has been filed ostensibly in Public Interest for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State of Jharkhand to conduct an inquiry in regard to the exorbitant expenditure of Rs. 1,04,78,477.57 on construction of an over bridge at Hathijiada between Panch Pandav & Block, within the jurisdiction of Ghatsila Block, East Singhbhum under the Rural Development. Special Division, Jamshedpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bridge which was required to be constructed at the aforesaid place would have been enough if the bridge had been stretched with a measurement of 15'/10' only and that would have entailed the expenditure of approximately five lacs rupees. It has been submitted that instead of constructing the bridge over the 'Nala' of the aforesaid specification, a bridge of much greater length has been constructed at an expense of Rs. 1,04,78,477.57. Therefore, the petitioner has urged that the construction of the bridge of a much greater length at a much higher expense, which was not required, ought not to have been allowed to be constructed, as a result of which large number of houses are now forced to be evicted below the bridge having serious repercussion on the home and hearth of the occupants. 3. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned JC to Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that the construction of the bridge, although, according to the petitioner, should have been of a shorter length, the bridge which has been constructed was decided to be constructed after obtaining technical opinion and after preparation of the project report which gave an opinion to construct the bridge of a longer length. The respondent-State could not have overruled the technical opinion of experts and accept layman's view like the petitioner. 4. It is relevant to take note of the fact that the petitioner has not come up with a case that the amount which had been spent on the construction had, in fact, not been spent on the same but his specific case is that a bridge of shorter length was sufficient which would have entailed a much less expenditure and that would have been sufficient to serve the purpose. Thus, the petitioner and his counsel have tried to overrule the opinion of the experts adopting a common sense approach contrary to the opinion of the technical experts that the bridge of a greater length was fit to be constructed on the 'Nala'. 5. In view of the aforesaid contesting plea of the petitioner and the technical experts, it is neither possible for this Court to come to a conclusive finding as to what would have been the appropriate length of the bridge, which was fit to be constructed nor is legally required even by way of a public interest litigation, although the Courts may in a given situation entertain a PIL to check alleged misuse of Government Fund if it gives rise to an alarming situation which shocks the conscience of the Court, where the same may be the appropriate reason to intervene and get the matter investigated. In our opinion, the instant writ petition is not one such case as the petitioner herein has merely urged that the length of the bridge which had been constructed should have been shorter so that the expenditure could be reduced and more than a sum of rupees one crore was a futile expenditure on construction of the bridge. 6. In our opinion, a boundary line at some stage will have to be drawn where the Courts will have to reasonably rely upon the opinion of the technical expert contrary to the common perception of a layman alleging misuse of Government Fund. In the instant matter, the expectation of the petitioner that this Court by way of a public interest litigation should enter into a scrutiny of the minute details of the opinion of the technical experts as to what should have been the length and breadth of a particular bridge which would have been sufficiently to serve the purpose of the commuters, cannot be held to be cause sufficient weighty or of grave concern so as to persuade the Court to interfere unless of course the opinion of technical experts results into a consequence which is so atrocious and obnoxious which would justify interference of the Court. The instant matter, in our view, cannot be treated to be a case of the said nature. 7. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this public interest litigation. The instant matter, in our view, cannot be treated to be a case of the said nature. 7. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this public interest litigation. In fact, in course of arguments, we could gather that this petition cannot be treated even as a public interest litigation as the petitioner is essentially aggrieved that his house which is situated under the bridge will be affected on account of the construction of the bridge of a longer length. If the petitioner is aggrieved on this count, the remedy for him lies elsewhere before the appropriate forum and not by way of a public interest litigation since a public interest litigation which essentially is a personal interest, cannot be entertained. 8. We, therefore, refrain from entertaining this public interest litigation and consequently dismiss it. However, in the interest of equity and justice, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the public representative of his area or any other appropriate forum to raise his grievance and it is for them to consider the same in order to reach to a just conclusion by relocating the affected parties who are to be uprooted on account of construction of the bridge.