JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. We have heard Mr. A. Kashyap assisted by Mr. S.K. Deuri, learned Advocates for the petitioners; Mr. B.D. Goswami assisted by Mr. A. Chandran, learned Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 as well as Mr. A. Hussain for respondent Nos.3 and 6. 2. This contempt petition has been filed for the non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2014 passed in PIL No.101/2013, wherein the respondents were directed to take up the project for widening and constructing the road as per the proposal sent to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (in short, “MoRTH”) within a period of 2(two) years. The project related to the construction of Sedde-Pakro Section of the road. 3. The PIL judgment emphasized that it should be completed along with the Sedde-Pakro approved road project as it would improve the connectivity. The contentions of the petitioners is that despite clear direction issued by the Court, the same was not done. The allegation is that the directions were ignored. 4. We have perused the judgment and order dated 18.09.2014 passed in PIL No.101/2013. 5. The Bench had found, after going through the pleadings and hearing the parties, that the PIL lacked merit in seeking abandonment of new design and new alignment. However, while disposing off the PIL petition, it was observed that there was a dire necessity of improving the BRO road existing in the villages for the purposes of having a better connectivity of the township as well as to the approach road to the Highway between Sedde-Pakro. Since the move made by the Arunachal Pradesh Government regarding improving and upgrading the BRO road as a National Highway was not accepted by the MoRTH, the Bench had directed the Arunachal Pradesh Government to widen the BRO road as per the earlier proposal sent to the MoRTH, thereby providing better connectivity to the township. While saying so, the Court had taken note of the fact that for the aforesaid purpose, the State of Arunachal Pradesh had acquired lands for widening the BRO road and compensation had also been paid to the land owners. 6. The petitioners, however, admit that the new alignment proposal was followed and the project was completed in all respects, with which now they do not have any objection. 6. The petitioners, however, admit that the new alignment proposal was followed and the project was completed in all respects, with which now they do not have any objection. However, the present contempt petition has been filed for non-execution of the directions issued by the Bench for widening a sector of the Sedde-Pakro road which fell in the old alignment for which land had been acquired. This sector is of 31 Kilometres which, according to the petitioners, has been left out without any cogent reason. 7. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2/Commissioner, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh indicates that the proposed alignment for Trans-Arunachal Highway from Nechipu- Hoj was approved by the Chief Engineer (P10), MoRTH and subsequently, the work was awarded to Sushee-IVRCL Arunachal Highway Limited. After the award of the work, the actual land survey, design and drawing were approved by the concessionaire as also by the Authorities. Based on the approved design, drawing and site plan of concessionaire, the project was carried out but the original BRO road stretch from Sedde-Pakro for a length of 31 Kilometres was by-passed and left out. The assessment for the acquisition of land and compensation was made only for the new and shorter alignment between the Sedde-Pakro for a length of 15.83 kilometres, which stands completed in all respects. The land acquisition, assessment, notification and compensation of payment to the land owners on the existing/old BRO alignment from Sedde to Pakro, for 31 Kilometres were never carried out. The observations of the PIL Bench in that respect could not be executed as the locations in the old alignment had difficult geometrics involving numerous curves, hair-pin bends, which did not conform to the specification and standards as prescribed by the Indian Road Congress and the extended guidelines of the Ministry. The MoRTH had issued direction to all the States regarding the maintenance of the section of the National Highways which was by-passed in the present alignment. A request had earlier been made to the Ministry by the State Government for improving the BRO road, as the State was having financial constraints. The MoRTH had issued direction to all the States regarding the maintenance of the section of the National Highways which was by-passed in the present alignment. A request had earlier been made to the Ministry by the State Government for improving the BRO road, as the State was having financial constraints. It was, therefore, decided that before handing over certain sections of the National Highways to the State Governments, the improvement work in Sedde-Pakro Section shall be carried out through the funds of the Central Government as a one-time investment, keeping in view the site requirements; local needs of the area and the safety requirements, etc. For this, the State P.W.D. Highway Department had also submitted an estimate for maintenance and upgradation of the existing road to the Ministry. However, the request was later turned down by the Central Government on the ground that development and maintenance of the left out sections of the National Highways was the responsibility of the State PWD. It was only for that reason that such broadening of 31 Kilometres sector in Sedde-Pakro region could not be carried out. There was also a note of the local MLA that there is no inhabitation on that stretch and for providing road connectivity to CO Headquarters, other connecting road should be repaired. Nonetheless, the State acknowledges its commitment of improving all roads specially when such roads can improve the connectivity of the villages. Though it has been submitted that the sector of 31 Kilometres in Sedde-Pakro region fell out of the new alignment but every efforts shall be taken to improve and upgrade the stretch of 31 kilometres, as far as it is possible. 8. Countering the afore-noted submissions on behalf of the respondent No.2, Mr. Kashyap, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that even though the old alignment was stated to be very difficult for being included in the project, the same was not accepted by the Court. Apart from that, it was further pointed out that the land acquisition and compensation was made on the basis of the old alignment and not the new alignment. 9. This statement on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, is in the nature of an oath against an oath, which cannot be accepted/appreciated for the present. 10. Mr. Apart from that, it was further pointed out that the land acquisition and compensation was made on the basis of the old alignment and not the new alignment. 9. This statement on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, is in the nature of an oath against an oath, which cannot be accepted/appreciated for the present. 10. Mr. Kasyap has further strenuously argued that despite the PIL Bench having agreed to the proposition of the new alignment being a more viable option, but had issued directions to the State to take up the responsibility of upgrading the sectors falling in old alignment to at least a 2(two)- lane Highway standard. 11. As noted above, the promise of the respondent No.2 is that the same shall be carried out as far as it is possible. 12. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we do not find that any case for initiating contempt against the proposed contemnors has been made out. 13. The observation of the PIL Bench with respect to the sector, which fell in the old alignment, was not capable of being executed for the difficult terrain. However, efforts were made for getting such sector repaired but the Central Government left the responsibility on the State Government only. 14. Under such a scenario, we are satisfied that there was no wilful contempt of the Court’s order, specially, in view of the assertion of the respondent No.2 that all efforts shall be made to upgrade/repair the 31 kilometres stretch between Sedde-Pakro which was left out in the new alignment, as far as it is possible. 15. The contempt petition, thus, is dismissed.