Dismissed

Jagtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CWP/11272/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the feasibility of a sewerage project route, the High Court held that the petition lacked bonafide intent. The court reasoned that residents of the area are laymen without locus standi to question public works of importance on grounds of cost or feasibility, which rest with executing agencies, and the matter involved disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners warned of obstructionist litigation.

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 11272 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 11272 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.05.2012

¶4

Jagtar Singh and others

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners

¶11

Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab

¶12

Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Advocate for the respondent no.3

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶14

The petitioners have filed the instant petition questioning the feasibility of laying down sewerage pipelines which in the site plan have been depicted as being executed from point A to C and then D. According to the petitioners point A to D is the shortest possible distance and therefore, entire distance from A to C & D is not only against public interest but is likely to cost the Exchequer more in terms of expenditure.

¶15

The petitioners are land owners in the vicinity of the proposed project and have voiced their cause in the aforesaid manner.

¶16

This Court took notice of the petition and during the course of proceedings also appointed a Local Commissioner who was required to look at the factual issues and was directed to give a report regarding the feasibility of having a channel from A to D directly southwards taking into consideration the available space on ground and the danger as expressed by the State if the channel were to proceed southwards directly from A to D by

¶17

CWP No. 11272 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶18

deeper excavation.

¶19

The report has since been submitted which this Court finds to be unsatisfactory as rather than confining itself to the dispute raised by the petitioners regarding feasibility of the project being executed from point A to D and the dangers expressed in this regard, Local Commissioner has exceeded the mandate of the order of this Court dated 4.10.2011 and has rather evaluated the works.

¶20

Be that as it may be, the Court is of the opinion that this is a petition which is fraught with serious lack of bonafide intent and content. The petitioners who are resident of the area have no locus to question the works of public importance on ground of inadequacy or feasibility of execution. The project of this magnitude and importance are best left to the executing agencies who are expected to carry out appropriate survey to assess the feasibility of such projects keeping in mind the beneficial aspects of the residents and its costs effectiveness. The residents of the area who are laymen cannot understand the intricacies of the project and merely because they perceive the project to be more feasible if executed in a particular way cannot be a sufficient basis to off-set the intensity of the studies and efforts which go into the project at its conceptual stage. The respondents have categorically stated that there is no intention of carrying out the sewerage line from C to D and therefore, the very apprehension of the petitioners that a circuititious route is being followed to reach point D has been falsified.

¶21

In any eventuality, it is public interest which has to give way to private interest. As observed earlier, it is the executing agencies which are well endowed technically to assess what is the best possible way to

¶22

CWP No. 11272 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶23

execute a project of such importance.

¶24

The petition is, therefore, held to be without any merit as it also raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be appreciated in writ jurisdiction.

¶25

The writ petition, therefore, has to be dismissed. But before parting with the order the Court feels that it would have been an apt case where costs should have been imposed upon the petitioners for filing a petition which can at best be termed to be obstructionist. However, the Court restrains its hands and only warns the petitioners to be careful in raising issues which are without any basis and which have the result of obstructing the works of public importance.

¶26

May 8, 2012 rekha

¶27

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Jagtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjir Singh Vs Indo Barma Petroleum Corp. and Ors.

Public Service Station Vs UOI

Management Committee, National College, Bhikhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharambir Agnihotri Vs State of Punjab and Others

Khadi Sewa Sangh Vs Haryana State Khadi & Village Industries Bo. & Ors.

P S E B Vs Surindra Steel Rolling and General Mills and Ors.