JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been taken up in the revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. 2. We have heard Shri S.P. Tripathi and Shri S.S. Rajawat, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. This Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for quashing of the order passed by the Commissioner, Rural Development dated 20th August, 2014 and also for a mandamus commanding the respondents to get a road and an under bridge constructed in between the two pillars of the unmanned gate of a railway crossing on Sultanpur - Varanasi Road, District - Sultanpur. The petition has been filed keeping in view the stated difficulties being faced by the villagers of four villages namely, Ramau Ka Purwa, Pure Baghrai, Siptapur and Lakhipur at Tehsil - Lambhua, District - Sultanpur who allege that previously there was an unmanned railway crossing at the given site that was being utilised by the villagers to cross over the double line of the railways in order to reach their agricultural fields on the other side. The Railways have withdrawn the facilities of an unmanned crossing and on account of withdrawal of such facilities, the farmers of these four villages are facing immense hardship in approaching their agricultural holdings. An approach was made to the local Member of Parliament and the Member of Legislative Assembly who gave their recommendations in favour of these farmers way back in the year 2012. The same was got examined with the involvement of the State Government agencies, the Ministry of Railways and the Officials of the Railways Department; and ultimately the Commissioner, Rural Development had been called upon to pass an order after a judicial intervention in Writ Petition No.11321 M/B of 2013. It may be put on record that this grievance was being pressed and the proposal of providing a railway under bridge at the given place was being pursued but on account of one department not co-ordinating with the other and without any serious deliberation in respect thereof, a specific direction was issued on 04th of December, 2013 by a Division Bench of this Court by the following order:- "The writ petition has been filed in the public interest by the local residents complaining of the inaction in the construction of a road under bridge in between Poll No. 902/14 and 902/15, unmanned gate no. 67-C, Sultanpur-Varanasi Rail Division, which falls under Sultanpur district. From the record, it appears that several policy circulars notifications have been issued by the Union Ministry of Railways on 10.09.2010, 23.08.2011 and 31.01.2012 to facilitate the construction of road under bridges where necessary by utilizing funds provided under the MNREGA or as the case may be under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, M.P. LADS etc. In the present case, the grievance is that though a resolution was passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat on 20.06.2012, no action has been taken for the release of funds by the State Government. The petitioner has relied upon a letter of the Senior Divisional Engineer (IV), Northern Railway, Lucknow dated 04.09.2012, stating that if the State Government proposed the road under bridge at an unmanned railway crossing, such a construction can be made. From the record, it appears that on 19.01.2013 the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has moved a letter to the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, seeking the release of funds from the MNREGA followed by a further letter dated 03.05.2013. In so far as the Union Ministry of Railways is concerned, learned counsel appearing on its behalf states before the Court that under the consistent policy of the Ministry, the work of construction of a road under bridge can be facilitated provided necessary funds are sanctioned by the State Government as contemplated in the policy circulars and notifications issued by the Ministry. In our view, having due regard to the stated policy of the Union Government under the Railway Ministry and the necessity of protecting local residents from serious dangers posed by unmanned railway crossings, it is essential that the State Government should act expeditiously and take a decision on the communication/proposal of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow, There is no reason or justification to keep the proposal, as submitted by the District Magistrate, pending for a long period. Having regard to the fact that the construction of a road under bridge would promote the safety of the local residents and is evidently necessary besides which the Union Ministry of Railway is also supporting such proposal, an expeditious decision should be taken by the Commissioner. Having regard to the fact that the construction of a road under bridge would promote the safety of the local residents and is evidently necessary besides which the Union Ministry of Railway is also supporting such proposal, an expeditious decision should be taken by the Commissioner. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. to take an expeditious decision no later than within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, having due regard to the necessity of constructing the road under bridge to obviate the existence of an unmanned railway crossing at the site in issue. With these observations, we dispose of the writ petition. There is no order as to costs. " 4. Another writ petition was filed being Writ Petition No.9528 of 2014 as a P.I.L. praying for release of the budget for giving effect to the proposal dated 22nd of May, 2014 for the construction of the road under bridge where it was brought to the notice of the Bench that Writ Petition No.11321 M/B of 2013 had already been filed and a direction had been issued and on account of non-compliance of the said direction, a Contempt Application No.735 of 2014 had been filed where a compliance affidavit was placed before the Court. Through the said compliance affidavit, the order of the Commissioner, Rural Development dated 20th of August, 2014 was placed on record. The judgment and order in the contempt application dated 06.09.2014 is extracted here-in-under:- "Pursuant to earlier order of this Court, Sri Prabhat Mittal, Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. is present and files short counter affidavit annexing therewith copy of the order dated 20.08.2014 which has been passed in compliance of the order dated 04.12.2013, passed by writ court and the order dated 11.04.2014, passed in this contempt petition. The direction issued by the writ court in its order dated 04.12.2013 runs as under:- "In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P. to take an expeditious decision no later than within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, having due regard to the necessity of constructing the road under bridge to obviate the existence of an unmanned railway crossing at the site in issue." In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 04.12.2013, the Commissioner, Rural Development has passed an order dated 20.08.2014 whereby the matter in respect of the grievance of the petitioner has been considered and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture, submits that the order dated 20.08.2014 has been passed illegally and on wrong premise and further that relevant aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Commissioner, Rural Development while passing the said order. The direction issued by the writ court was to the effect that the Commissioner, Rural Development will take an expeditious decision having due regard to the necessity of constructing the road under bridge to obviate the existence of an unmanned railway crossing at the site in issue. The decision by the Commissioner, Rural Development has been taken on 20.08.2014. The said decision may or may not be legally correct, however, merely because the decision taken is not legally correct in the understanding of the petitioner, it cannot be said that officer concerned is guilty of contempt. Regard may be had in this connection to the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav and others, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 115 , wherein in has been observed that when the court directs an authority to consider the matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and, therefore, mere error of judgment with regard to legal position cannot constitute contempt of court. If the action of the respondent is taken into account in the light of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others (supra), in my considered opinion, there is no wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.12.013 passed by the writ court. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India and another, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 699, wherein writ petition filed by the petitioner therein was disposed of in the backdrop of the fact that railways had issued detailed guidelines. While disposing of the matter it was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would be open to the petitioner to move the High Court concerned with regard to implementation of the said Guidelines. The aforesaid judgment does not come to rescue of the petitioner so far as the proceeding of the instant contempt petition is concerned. If, in any case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order dated 20.08.2014, the authority concerned has not taken into account the guidelines issued by the authorities of the Railways, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 20.08.2014 by taking recourse to appropriate legal remedy which may be available to him under law. In view of above, the contempt petition is hereby dismissed. Notice issued, if any, shall stand discharged. " 5. The judgment and order passed in the second writ petition on 18.09.2014 is extracted herein under:- "Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel. The petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 7 and 10 to release the budget in pursuance of proposal dated 22.5.2014 for the construction of the Road under Bridge in between Poll No.902/14 and 902/15, unmanned level Gate No.67-C, Sultanpur-Varanasi Rail Division, under district Sultanpur. A bare perusal of the record reveals that for the same subject matter a Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 11321 of 2013 had already been filed. The writ petition was disposed of finally on 04.12.2013 with direction to the Commissioner Rural Development, State of U.P. to take expedient decision within a period of three months. A bare perusal of the record reveals that for the same subject matter a Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 11321 of 2013 had already been filed. The writ petition was disposed of finally on 04.12.2013 with direction to the Commissioner Rural Development, State of U.P. to take expedient decision within a period of three months. Since the Commissioner concerned did not take decision in the matter, therefore, the petitioners filed contempt petition which was registered as contempt petition No. 735 of 2014. Meanwhile the Commissioner Rural Development passed an order in the matter on 20.08.2014. Now the petitioners have come forward through the instant writ petition as they have taken up the issue as Public Interest with prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents No. 7 & 8 to release the budget, whereas the matter for same very reliefs has already been dealt with by the Commissioner Rural Development and has been rejected. Therefore we are of the view that the petitioners instead filing the instant writ petition has a remedy to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner Rural Development. Thus we are of the view that the writ petition is misconceived and therefore it is dismissed. " 6. A conspectus of the aforesaid facts, therefore, indicates that judicial intervention had already taken place pursuant whereto the impugned order dated 20th of August, 2014 had been passed. It is challenging the said order that the present writ petition has been filed. 7. It appears that when this writ petition was taken up, affidavits were exchanged between the parties and a short counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Public Works Department (P.W.D.). An affidavit on behalf of the State was filed on 26.05.2016 in response to the orders passed by this Court dated 17th November, 2015 & 25th January, 2016. The said orders which are on the order-sheet are extracted herein under:- 17th November, 2015 "Learned Additional Advocate General has apprised of the situation prevailing in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners informed that in August, 2014 the Rural Development Commissioner has referred the matter to the Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Government of U.P. for approval and the approval has not been accorded uptil now. Learned counsel for the petitioners informed that in August, 2014 the Rural Development Commissioner has referred the matter to the Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Government of U.P. for approval and the approval has not been accorded uptil now. Let necessary exercise be undertaken by the Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Government of U.P. and this Court be informed on the next date regarding the approval or non approval in regard to release of the fund. List on Monday i.e. 23.11.2015." XXX XXX XXX 25th January, 2016 "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Railways. This Court while passing the order dated 4.12.2013 has taken into consideration of the relevant facts and also the consent of the Railways for construction of under bridge and a direction was given by this Court to take expeditious decision in the matter. The decision has been brought on record by way of counter affidavit and this decision does not appear to be a correct decision as the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Government of U.P. has relied on the fact that there is an existing unmanned railway crossing No.67-C at the distance of 140 metres but learned counsel for the petitioners informs that the said unmanned railway crossing has been closed. Therefore, it appears that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Government of U.P. Let a fresh decision be taken by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Government of U.P., Lucknow within a period of six weeks, taking into consideration the no objection of the railways and the reports submitted to the government in regard to the constructions of underpass/bridge as it is stated that three villages are situated at one side of the railway crossing, whereas there is entire cultivation area near about one thousand acres on the other side of the railway crossing which is causing immense problems to the residents of the villages concerned and also the safety of the local residents is in danger, in case under bridge is not constructed. List this case after six weeks." 8. It is however to be noted that the short counter affidavit already filed on record dated 21st November, 2015 has placed before the Court the letter of the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. addressed to the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department in relation to this very writ petition. List this case after six weeks." 8. It is however to be noted that the short counter affidavit already filed on record dated 21st November, 2015 has placed before the Court the letter of the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. addressed to the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department in relation to this very writ petition. The said letter dated 20.11.2015 is extracted here-in-under:- egRroiw.kZ@dksVZ dsl la[;k&2301bZ@23-11-2015 izs"kd] fd'ku flag vVksfj;k] izeq[k lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] izeq[k vfHk;Urk fodkl ,oa foHkkxk/;{k] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] y[kumA yksd fuekZ.k vuqHkkx&11 y[kum & fnuakd 20-11-2015 fo"k;%& flfoy fjV fiVh'ku& ,e@ch100538@2014 ih0vkbZ0,y0 gfj izlkn feJk cuke ;wfu;u vkQ bafM;k o vU;A mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k&88 fl0fj0@lsrq&31@15 fnuakd 20-11-2015 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djsa] ftlds }kjk vk[;k miyC/k djkrs gq;s voxr djk;k x;k gS fd iz'uxr okn ls lEcfU/kr jsyos v.Mj fczt dh ekax xzke yk[khiqj o ckxjk; ds xzkeh.kksa }kjk dh x;h gS] ftudksa ek= 300 ehVj dh nwjh ij ekuo lfgr jsyos dzkflax la[;k&66lh@2bZ dkerkxat cktkj ls 'kEHkwxat ekxZ ij iwoZ ls gh miyC/k gS] lkFk gh ftl LFkku ij jsyos v.Mj fczt dh ekax dh tk jgh gS] ml LFkku ij xzkm.M ysfcy ls jsyos ykbu dh mpkbZ Hkh jsyos v.Mj fczt ds fuekZ.k gsrq Ik;kZIr ugh gSA ;g Hkh voxr djk;k x;k gS fd ftl LFkku ij jsyos v.Mj fczt dh ekax dh tk jgh gS mlesa xzke yk[khiqj o ckxjk; dh rjQ xzke iapk;r }kjk fufeZr bZVksa dk [kM+atk ek= gS rFkk jsyos ykbu ds nwljs rjQ ek= [ksr gS] dksbZ jkLrk Hkh miyC/k ugha gSA vr% iz'uxr jsyos v.Mj fczt dh ekax vkfpR;iw.kZ ugha gSA jsyos ykbu ds mij vkj0vks0ch0 vFkok jsyos ykbu ds uhps vkj0;w0ch0 dk fuekZ.k jsyos foHkkx }kjk gh fd;k tkr gSA fo"k;xr izdj.k vkj0;w0ch0 ds fuekZ.k ls lEcfU/kr gSA mDr okn ds ek/;e ls tuin lqYrkuiqj esa lqYrkuiqj ls okjk.klh jsy [k.M QkVd la[;k&67lh ls yxHkx 140 ehVj if'pe esa jsyos v.Mj fczt fuekZ.k ds lEcU/k esa dh x;h ekax vkSfpR;iw.kZ u gksus ds dkj.k yskd fuekZ.k foHkkx ds Lrj ls dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh visf{kr ugha gSA 2- vr,o bl lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd vkids }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h mDr vk[;k@dk;ZLFky dh fLFkfr ds vuqlkj fo"k;xr vkj0;w0ch0 dh ekax@fuekZ.k ds vkSfpR;iw.kZ u gksus ds vkids izLrko ij 'kklu dh lgefr iznku dh tkrh gSA rn~uqlkj yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ds Lrj ls dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh visf{kr ugh gSA d`i;k rn~uqlkj mDr tufgr ;kfpdk lquokbZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr frfFk 23-11-2015 ds iwoZ mDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izfr'kiFk&i= rS;kj djkdj ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky djkus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh; ¼fd'ku flag vVksfj;k½ izeq[k lfpoA 9. This was written in response to the letter written by the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department explaining the technical aspects relating to the non-feasibility of the construction of the railway bridge along with the sketch map and photographs stating therein that firstly the level of the land was such that the same was not appropriate for the construction of a railway under bridge. It was further pointed out that even otherwise there was no necessity of providing a railway under bridge as claimed, inasmuch as, only 300 meters away there is a manned railway crossing which can be utilised by the villagers for approaching their agricultural fields. These facts which have been stated in the said short counter affidavit have been replied through a rejoinder affidavit dated 13.01.2016 stating therein that the railways were agreeable to get the railway under bridge constructed provided the State of U.P. conceded to the entire financial requirements for the same and a provision was made to that effect. In the absence of the same, the file was treated to have been closed. It is thereafter that the matter was persuaded for obtaining funds and also for providing an aid to that effect upon which the Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India (NREGA Division) wrote a letter on 01st of March, 2016 that the said funds are not meant for utilisation for such projects as it is not permitted under the said scheme. The Commissioner, Rural Development and the State of U.P. were called upon to again pass an appropriate order and make information available about the availability of funds on which the Rural Development Department of the Govt. of U.P. through its Deputy Secretary issued an office memorandum dated 10th of March, 2016 clearly indicating therein that since making provision for funds through the MNREGA Scheme is not permissible, therefore, any financial aid cannot be extended. 10. The petitioners in essence, therefore, have pleaded that they were also prepared to give their land for such construction but in spite of this the respondent - State Government was reluctant to make any provision of funds about which proposals were being sent time and again. The proposal for providing the funds had been engaging the attention of the various departments but as indicated above, the technical feasibility was clearly found to be deficient for the construction of the railway under bridge. 11. The proposal for providing the funds had been engaging the attention of the various departments but as indicated above, the technical feasibility was clearly found to be deficient for the construction of the railway under bridge. 11. The petitioners have nowhere challenged the said report of the State Government and of the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, but in their rejoinder affidavit, have alleged that they are prepared to give their land in order to meet this exigency and also that the railways had no objection to the railway under bridge being constructed. 12. In the background aforesaid what we find is that this issue relating to technical feasibility as also the availability of funds is a matter of executive concern. The availability of an alternative route at a distance of 300 meters have been clearly stated therein which fact had not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. It is also on record that a proposal had been sent by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur vide his letter dated 22nd of May, 2014 for making a provision at Rs. 244.76 Lacs for the construction of the railway under bridge. 13. What we find is that the Public Works Department has considered it to be not feasible for two reasons; firstly that a manned railway crossing is available at a distance of 300 meters which can be utilised and secondly, the level of the land was not such that it could be utilised for the construction of a railway under bridge. 14. In the aforesaid background, we cannot compel the respondents to proceed to construct the railway under bridge as they have also indicated that there was an existence of only a brick should Kharanja road on one side without there being any road at the other side of the track. 15. The aforesaid issues, therefore, being one of a public demand do not call for a judicial intervention on account of the aforesaid technical aspects that have been brought forward and which remain unchallenged before us. 16. Consequently, we consign this petition to records without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to persuade the State Government to proceed for such funds and get an under bridge constructed with the co-ordination with the railways department. The disposal of this writ petition will not be an impediment in their passage. 17. Consigned to records with the said observations.