Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 844 (UTT)

Pratap Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-18

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to construct proposed Culverts and retaining walls at Km-2 and Km-3 on Kapkot-Duni-Sukunda Motor Road under Kapkot Vikas Khand in the District Bageshwar with immediate effect.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: In the year 2008, the State Government sanctioned the Kapkot-Duni-Sukunda Motor Road under Kapkot Vikas Khand in District Bagshwar vide G.O. No. 784/III(2)/08-42 (M.L.A.)/07 dated 20.03.2008. The length of the aforesaid road is 5 kms. On 26.03.2011, the Superintendent Engineer, Circle-I, P.W.D. Almora passed an office memorandum. It is alleged that the P.W.D. started construction of the aforesaid road. It is further alleged that the construction of the aforesaid road was done irregularly, improperly and without giving proper security to the residential houses situated near the road. The residential house of the petitioner is also situated just below the Kapkot-Duni-Sukunda Motor Road Km. 2, where the family of the petitioner is residing. Ten other villagers’ families are also residing there. The P.W.D. has constructed the retaining walls and all proposed culverts near the Kapkot-Duni-Sukunda Motor Road Km.2. As a consequence thereof, water from the side of these houses of the villagers started accumulating in the house of the petitioner and petitioner apprehends that it may create a natural calamity in the near future. The petitioner and other villagers time to time informed the authorities of the P.W.D. regarding their problems arisen from the construction of road, but they did not take the matter seriously. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation before the Sub District Magistrate, Kapkot on 14.06.2013 and requested him to take appropriate action in the matter and to rehabilitate the family of the petitioner. The petitioner also wrote a letter on 25.06.2016 to the Chief Minister, Uttarakhand and informed him about the same. The member of the Legislature of Kapkot Constituency also wrote a letter on 13.07.2013 to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Kapkot and directed him to take appropriate action against the problem of the petitioner. The petitioner also wrote a letter on 25.06.2016 to the Chief Minister, Uttarakhand and informed him about the same. The member of the Legislature of Kapkot Constituency also wrote a letter on 13.07.2013 to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Kapkot and directed him to take appropriate action against the problem of the petitioner. When the S.D.M., Kapkot and other Authorities did not take any action on the representation of the petitioner and letter of Legislature, the petitioner moved another representation before the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Kapkot, who inspected the construction site of the said motor road and informed the petitioner vide letter dated 03.04.2014 that he has sent the estimate of the security work of the petitioner’s house to the S.D.M., Kapkot and the proposed security work can be started after the permission of the aforesaid estimate is obtained from the S.D.M., Kapkot. Petitioner’s mother also requested to the Government Authorities regarding aforesaid problem from time to time by making representations. When the authorities concerned did not take any action against the problem of the petitioner and his family, the mother of the petitioner started picketing at Tehsil Kapkot. She withdrew picketing after the written settlement dated 21.07.2014 between her and authorities of P.W.D. and the authorities promised her that they will solve her problem very soon. Petitioner again moved a representation to the District Magistrate, Bageshwar regarding the said problem and requested him to start construction of retaining walls and remaining culverts immediately, but the said representation has not been decided by the respondent no. 4, i.e., the District Magistrate, Bageshwar so far and the same is pending consideration. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 2. In the counter affidavit, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:- “5. That the contents of para 3 of the writ petition is not admitted as stated, hence denied. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kapkot and M.L.A. Kapkot wrote letters for the sanctioning of the budget as the budget was not available for the reconstruction of the aforesaid culverts as well as the maintenance of the road. Therefore, the work is detained due to the non availability of the budget and now after receiving the budget from the World Bank Division, Public Works Department the work of retaining walls and up gradation of road is under progress.” 4. Therefore, the work is detained due to the non availability of the budget and now after receiving the budget from the World Bank Division, Public Works Department the work of retaining walls and up gradation of road is under progress.” 4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 5. Considering the facts mentioned in para 5 of the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the budget at the earliest. After money is received, the respondent no. 2 is directed to reconstruct the aforesaid culverts as well as the maintenance of the said road expeditiously, preferably on or before 30.06.2017. 6. There will be no order as to costs.