Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 895 (ALL)

Gopal Singh v. State Of U. P.

2021-08-16

MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, RAJENDRA KUMAR IV

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed to seek a direction on the respondents for construction of a bridge at Rampur Dhakadandi Ghat, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur as per the report of the technical team. The construction of the bridge has been undertaken by the respondents as per the survey report which identified three locations for raising the bridge and out of which third location was found to be suitable and accordingly work has been commenced. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the order earlier passed with the assessment of the budget to be incurred for the construction of the bridge, the location was different than has now been selected by the respondents. The survey was undertaken subsequently to the order after identifying the locations with allocation of budget. It was under the influence of local M.L.A. that the location of the bridge has been changed. The location earlier identified was more appropriate but ignoring the aforesaid, the construction has been commenced to raise the bridge on a different location. 4. It is ignoring the fact that for crossing the river, a small bridge exists near the location and otherwise the construction of bridge at the location would involve more acquisition of agricultural land than on the originally proposed bridge. 5. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to stop the construction of the bridge at the location selected by them and to commence it on the location initially identified. 6. The writ petition has been contested by the Chief Standing Counsel. He submits that the construction work was started after a survey of all the locations where there were possibility of construction of bridge. The location on which now the construction is going on was found to be more suitable. The construction of bridge cannot be based on one aspect but is to be undertaken after considering all the relevant aspects which may be more suitable for construction of bridge. It is not only after identifying the location viz.-a-viz. strength of the soil and the rocks which may have minimum possibility of any damage to the bridge and other relevant issues. This has been addressed by the team which conducted the survey and as per their report, the construction of bridge has been undertaken. It is not only after identifying the location viz.-a-viz. strength of the soil and the rocks which may have minimum possibility of any damage to the bridge and other relevant issues. This has been addressed by the team which conducted the survey and as per their report, the construction of bridge has been undertaken. It is not under the influence of the M.L.A. rather this has been stated without any basis. It could not be given out as to how the M.L.A. would be benefited by shifting the location or by construction of the bridge at the site now selected because he is the M.L.A. of both the locations. 7. The prayer is to dismiss the writ petition. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 9. The writ petition was filed to seek a direction for construction of the bridge on the river at the location initially identified by the respondents with budgetary allocation. It is true that survey was conducted subsequent to it. Now the construction of the bridge is going on as per the survey report. Three locations were identified but the team conducted survey and third location was found to be more suitable. It needs minimum acquisition of land and otherwise taking into consideration the other aspect relevant for construction of bridge, certified to be the best suitable places where now the construction is going on. 10. The construction of the bridge is at advance stage, thus, we do not find any reason to direct the respondents to shift the location and otherwise when survey report does not support the location earlier identified for construction of bridge, we do not want to go contrary to the survey report. 11. It is the technical experts who occupy the field to suggest the best suitable place for construction of the bridge and not the Court. 12. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to issue direction of the nature sought by the petitioners. 11. It is the technical experts who occupy the field to suggest the best suitable place for construction of the bridge and not the Court. 12. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to issue direction of the nature sought by the petitioners. It is more so when no material could be referred to seek shifting of the location of the bridge under the influence of M.L.A. The counsel for the petitioners could not specify how the M.L.A. is going to be benefited in the shifting of the place of bridge when he is M.L.A. of the entire area because distance from the location indicated by the petitioners and the selected by the respondents is not very far. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit to allow the prayer of the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed.