JUDGMENT Govind Nagar Resident Welfare Association is before this Court with the following prayer; "i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities specifically to the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 6 to realign the down ramp of the Govind Nagar ROB which is under construction, on the Chawla Market side towards Delhi side as per the specific provision of the G.A.D. prepared by Bridge Corporation, the P.W. as well as the railway authorities. ii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 and 6 to place the detailed report before the Hon'ble Court regarding the reasons for the deviation in alignment of the Govind Nagar ROB and the official responsible for the aforesaid mistake. iii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the state authorities to conduct a detailed inquiry and punish the responsible officers for the misappropriation of the state exchequer and to recover the extra cost of rectification from the persons responsible. iv.) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. v.) To award costs of the petition to the petitioner." 2. Earlier same set of petitioners have filed PIL No. 6 of 2016 and this Court has proceeded to pass the following order; "Invoking the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs in regard to the construction of a railway over bridge: "i. issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondent to ensure with width of land North-South Traffic cross to the Goving Nagar to be increased to 9.meter deviation in the alignment at the approach level as per the Harcourt Butler Technology Institute report dated 16.12.2015. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction to ensure the construction of ROB and the Ramp as per the provision in clause 12 keeping 4 m distance towards Delhi side for service road and two lane road towards Kanpur side for free movement of traffic of Existing R.O.B. as per recommendation of P.M.B.CU. Kanpur & G.M. Kanpur. ii. To issue a writ, order or direction to ensure the construction of ROB and the Ramp as per the provision in clause 12 keeping 4 m distance towards Delhi side for service road and two lane road towards Kanpur side for free movement of traffic of Existing R.O.B. as per recommendation of P.M.B.CU. Kanpur & G.M. Kanpur. The C.L. of Bridge towards chawala Market side has been shifted towards delhi side with a provision of 5.0M service road and also for keeping sufficient distance towards Kanpur side for future proposal of other R.O.B." 3. The learned Standing Counsel has placed on the record his instructions dated 5 January 2016 from the Deputy Project Manager of the U P State Bridge Corporation Limited. The instructions to the learned Standing Counsel indicate that the ROB near Govindpuri Railway Station is under construction. A part of the work is being carried out by the U P State Bridge Corporation Limited, while a part is assigned to the railway authorities for construction. The total cost as sanctioned on 31 March 2013 is Rs.4373.28 lacs of which, the cost of the portion assigned to the railway is Rs.2878.95 lacs. The work is under construction and 59% work of the approach portion has been constructed by the Corporation (as against 80%) while the railway has constructed 10% work (out of 20% falling within the portion of the railway). 4. The issue which has been raised in the petition is not amenable to the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matters of alignment, width and location of an over bridge cannot be determined by the Court. The petitioner may bring it to the attention of the competent authority for appropriate action. The suggestion of the petitioner in regard to the width of the approach road may appropriately be considered by the authorities. However, we clarify that this shall not be construed as any order of restraint on the completion of a public work. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 5. Petitioners claims to have represented the matter and are once again before this Court and this Court on 30.5.2016 asked the respondents to file a response to the averments mentioned in the writ petition. 6. Pursuant to the said directions issued by this Court response in question has been filed wherein in paragraph nos. Petitioners claims to have represented the matter and are once again before this Court and this Court on 30.5.2016 asked the respondents to file a response to the averments mentioned in the writ petition. 6. Pursuant to the said directions issued by this Court response in question has been filed wherein in paragraph nos. 17, 19, 22 and 23 following averments have been mentioned; "17. That the contents of paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition are the matters of record, and the reference is craved to the record itself. It is, however, respectfully submitted that the Special Note No. 4 of the G.A.D. provides as follows; This G.A.D. will be read in conjunction with the enlarged detailed plan showing permanent features as per survey plan submitted by the Unit In-charge B.C.U. Kanpur to the Head Office. 19. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that Point No. 12 in the General Arrangement Drawing (G.A.D.) reads as "Layout of ROB has been finalised by B.C.U. Kanpur along with all geometry of curves approved by G.M. Kanpur the approval of layout must be taken from the competent authority of the concerning departments. Along with District Magistrate, Kanpur as per G.O. mentioned at serial no. 1 before the starting of the actual construction work by construction unit. CL of bridge towards Fazalganj side has been shifted to Delhi side for keeping 4.0 meter distance towards Delhi side for service road and two lane road towards. Kanpur side for free movement of traffic of existing ROB as per recommendation of P.M. B.C.U. Kanpur & G.M. Kanpur. The CL of bridge towards Chawla market side has been shifted towards Delhi side with provision of 5.0 meter service road and also for keeping sufficient distance towards Kanpur side for future proposal of other ROB." But it is super ceded by the aforesaid Special Note No. 4 of the General Arrangement Drawing (G.A.D.). The allegations and suggestions to the contrary are denied. 22. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the width of the new bridge is 8.50 meter. Total width of main road in active use is 17.50 meter in which 8.50 meter is covered by the new ROB. The allegations and suggestions to the contrary are denied. 22. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the width of the new bridge is 8.50 meter. Total width of main road in active use is 17.50 meter in which 8.50 meter is covered by the new ROB. Out of the remaining 8.50 meter, 4.25 meter service road in Delhi side and 4.25 meter service road at Kanpur side has been approved. This is the provision of Technical Sanction of the work also. The allegations and suggestions to the contrary are denied. 23. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid 4.25 meter service road is available on the Kanpur side as well as Delhi side on the Chawla market side. The allegations and suggestions to the contrary are denied." Once such is the factual situation that has been so mentioned in the response in question that has been so filed and the issue which has been raised in the present writ petition is in reference of alignment, width and location of over-bridge and the said issue as has already been observed by this Court on the earlier occasion cannot be determined by this Court, in view of this, present PIL is dismissed, accordingly, and in our considered opinion much more public purpose would be sub-served if the over-bridge in question is permitted to be constructed without any impediment and such matters are left to be decided by the authorities concerned and here the authorities have already expressed their opinion, justifying the action so taken.