Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 188 (UTT)

Munni Bisht v. Union of India

2016-05-02

K.M.JOSEPH, U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Jospeh, J. 1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to complete the road from Supi Gomti Gair to Supi Lane Pokhra connecting Ramgarh and Dhari Block, measuring approximately 5 kilometers within a time bound period under the PMGSY. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to provide basic amenities for the purpose of bringing the fruit products from their farms which are situated on the Hills, to the main road and to provide a better living environment as guaranteed under Article 19, 21 and 38 of the Constitution of India.” 2. Briefly put, the facts of the present case are as follows: Petitioners are residents of Village Supi, Vikas Khand Ramgarh, District Nainital. They are engaged in agricultural farming in the area being very fertile for the growth of vegetables and fruits, the same being the only fruit growing area. According to the petitioners, there is absence of link/approach road connecting their dwellings and farms, which are situated on the hills, to the city. They have to carry load worth mounds on their shoulders and it is only after such strenuous effort that they are able to establish contact with the city. They have approached the authorities and also to the Chief Minister so that a road is constructed under the scheme known as “Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna” (for short, PMGSY). 3. A counter affidavit was filed by respondent no. 5 originally and this Court passed an interim order on 02.06.2014, which reads as under: “Clauses 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 of the Guidelines issued in connection with Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana have been placed before us. By reading the same, we have not been able to gather that people numbering less than 250 are not entitled to get advantage of the said Scheme. On the other hand, it only appears to us that habitation less than 250 is required to wait as habitation more than 250, then more than 500 and lastly more than 1,000 are to be given better preference. The Scheme talks about a network of roads. It also talks about link-roads. As it appears to us, the whole object is to ensure that the people are connected by roads to the nearest market place. The Scheme talks about a network of roads. It also talks about link-roads. As it appears to us, the whole object is to ensure that the people are connected by roads to the nearest market place. This connection may be by one single road or may be on the network of link-roads connecting to a main road. In the Affidavits filed until now by respondent no. 5, an irresponsible stand has been taken to the effect that since the population of these villages is less than 200 or little more than 200, there is no obligation of providing connectivity to them. We deprecate the stand, thus, taken. It has been submitted that there is an existing road from a village, by the name, Soopi, which connects the said village to the nearest market place. It has been stated that the villages, being the subject matter of this writ petition, are situate close to Soopi. It has not, however, been contended that roads leading from these villages do connect the villages with Soopi. We, accordingly, call upon respondent no. 5 to file yet another affidavit to bring on record the details of connectivity of Soopi and what steps are required to be taken for connecting the villages, being the subject matter of the writ petition, with Soopi so that appropriate direction may be given by this Court. For that purpose, we adjourn this matter for six weeks. 2. List six weeks hence.” 4. Subsequently, an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, which was dated 14.07.2014. Therein, it is, inter-alia, stated as follows: “2. That village Supi is connected by three roads (i) Kathgodam Bhowali to Nathuwakhan – Garhgoan motor road (ii) Kasiyalekh to Supi and (iii) Dhanachuli – Talla Ramgarh. A copy of the Sketch map depicting the network of roads in Ramgarh Block is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit. 3. That village Gomti Gair, Karkholi, Panyali, Bhirakhet, Bhateliya and Lanepokhara are hamlets of VillageSupi. As per guidelines of PMGSY a road is proposed/sanctioned only in respect of village/habitation which are shown in the core network. These hamlets have population less than 250 and are also not shown in core network, hence as of today road cannot be proposed as per P.M.G.S.Y. guidelines. So presently department is unable to propose the Supi Gomti Gair to Supi Lanepokhara road. These hamlets have population less than 250 and are also not shown in core network, hence as of today road cannot be proposed as per P.M.G.S.Y. guidelines. So presently department is unable to propose the Supi Gomti Gair to Supi Lanepokhara road. It is also relevant to state here that PMGSY is monitored by Govt. of India and facilities are provided by the State Government. The State Govt. does not decide any programme and roads are sanctioned as per guidelines of PMGSY. The amount is released by Govt. of India for sanctioned road only and is utilized for the same. A copy of the details of core network roads of District Nainital, Ramgarh Block is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. 4. That it is submitted here that the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 2.6.2014 called an affidavit from the respondents to bring the details of the connectivity of the Supi Village and what steps are required in connecting the villages, being the subject matter of the writ petition, with Supi. It is pertinent to submit here that the boundaries of village Supi contain many small hamlets including Gomti Gair and Lanepokhara. It is submitted that Gomti Gair is situated on the main Bhowali – Mukteshwar Road. It is further submitted that the Hamlet Lanepokhara is situated about 5 Kms. From the main Bhowali-Mukteshwar Road uphill. It is pertinent to submit here that the main Village Supi is situated downhill the Bhowali Mukteshwar Road and is connected through the three roads mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts connecting of hamlet Lanepokhara by a road to the nearest main Bhowali – Mukteshwar road it would not be necessary to connect the aforesaid hamlet to Village Supi.”. 5. Petitioners have filed the rejoinder affidavit. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: “4. That the contents of paragraph no. 2 and 3 of the Counter affidavit stated in the manner are incorrect, in fact there is no any link/approach road in Gram Supi within Karkholi-Panyali-Bhedakhet-Bhatelia Tok which are situated in between Sup Gomti Gher to Supi Len Phokhara (Tok) which is approximately 5 Km. and the number of population residing in this area is about. 2 and 3 of the Counter affidavit stated in the manner are incorrect, in fact there is no any link/approach road in Gram Supi within Karkholi-Panyali-Bhedakhet-Bhatelia Tok which are situated in between Sup Gomti Gher to Supi Len Phokhara (Tok) which is approximately 5 Km. and the number of population residing in this area is about. The population of Village Supi in total is about more than 1200 which is as per census 2011 copy of the same is already annexed with earlier rejoinder Affidavit dated 27.08.2013. The respondent no. 5 is misleading to Hon’ble Court. However at this juncture it is being made clear that PMGSY scheme is absolutely meant for rural area and primary object is to provide to by an all whether road to unconnected habitation in rural area and at this juncture it also relevant to mention that for Nainital District 08 roads works was sanctioned for length of 87.43 Km. But under PMGSY scheme progress is zero as on 29.03.2013 and further detailed reply has already been submitted in rejoinder affidavit dated 27.08.2013 in respect to earlier counter affidavit of respondent no.5 dated 17.07.2013. 5. That in reply to the contents of the paragraph no. 4 of the Counter affidavit it is submitted here that as already admitted by the respondent no. 5 that hamlet len Pokhra which is Tok under Village Supiis situated about 05 Km. from Bhowali Mukteshwar Road and as such it is clear itself from the said admission of respondent no. 5 that 5 km. distance is not linked up which is main grievance of petitioner which require the connectivity of the same.” 6. We heard Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 7. As already noticed above, the main relief sought by the petitioners before us is to direct the respondent authorities to complete the road from Supi Gomti Gair to Supi Lane Pokhra connecting Ramgarh and Dhari Block under the PMGSY. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has very fairly submitted that for coming under the benefit of the Scheme, there must be a population of more than 250. 9. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has very fairly submitted that for coming under the benefit of the Scheme, there must be a population of more than 250. 9. The case of the respondents is that though Village Supi has a population of more than 250, the hamlets in question are having population of less than 250 and, therefore, the matter could not be covered under the PMGSY. 10. We would think that there is merit in the contention of the respondents. Though Supi, which is a village, consists of population larger than 250, the hamlets, which are in direct focus before us, as being the subject matter of the relief, do not appear to have population of more than 250. If that is so, it would not fall in the core network and, therefore, they would not be entitled to have link road constructed under the PMGSY. 11. In such circumstances, the prayer sought as such cannot be granted. Therefore, we decline the reliefs sought by the petitioners, but without prejudice to the petitioners to approach the State Government for construction of road in question under any other scheme, other than the PMGSY. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.