Dismissed

Om Prakash Khatri and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2018CW/6801/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a public interest writ petition regarding an elevated road project in Udaipur. The court bound the National Highway Authority of India to seek prior approval before reviving or modifying the project, clarifying the mandate extends to other entities proposing similar construction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with direction binding NHAI and others to seek prior court approval for reviving or modifying the project.

Om Prakash Khatri and Ors. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ No. 6801/2018

¶4

Om Prakash Khatri S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Ji Khatri, Resident Of Basant Vihar Sunderwas Udaipur Rajasthan313001.

¶5

Jamna Shankar Dave S/o Shri Jai Shankar Dave, Resident Of 30, Jai Geeta Subhash Nagar, Road No. 1, Opp. B.n. College, Udaipur.

¶6

Udaipur Citizen Society, A Society Registered Under The Rajasthan Societies Act Having Its Registered Office At 6A/1, Ambamata Scheme, Udaipur Through Its President.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Public Works Department N.h. Division, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶10

National Highway Authority Of India Through Its Chairman, G 5And6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075

¶11

Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Udaipur, 10-A, Panchwati, Udaipur Raj.

¶12

Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Roads, Transport And Highways North, Government Of India, New Delhi.

¶13

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶14

Municipal Corporation, Udaipur Through Its Commissioner 7. The District Collector, Udaipur

¶15

Intercontinental Consultants And Technocrats Private Limited Ict, Iii-D-44, First Floor, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner-334003

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mehta

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Shukla Mr. Harish Chandra Sharma Mr. Mukesh Dave

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-6801/2018]

¶21

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶22

Order

¶23

12/12/2018

¶24

Main Writ Petition, Misc. Application No.01/2018 & 02/2018

¶25

On 03.10.2018 following order was passed in the writ

¶26

petition filed in public interest :-

¶27

“1. To facilitate flow of traffic connecting NH-8 to NH-76 through Udaipur city a suggestion was mooted way-back in the year 2008 to construct an elevated road from railway station at Udaipole to hospital road Chowraha. The first report prepared recorded that there would be a 90 ° curvature and because of the curvature the elevated road has to be wide. The reason is obvious. Fast flowing traffic with a road with 90 ° curvature would result in accident if the width of the road is inadequate.

¶28

2. A detailed project report was thereafter prepared by the Larsen & Toubro. The detailed project report highlighted the features which have been succinctly stated in various sub-paragraphs of para 4.4 of the writ petition. In the year 2017 NHAI directed the ICT to prepare a detailed project report. The detailed project report with respect to the design of the road would bring out that the authorities are conscious of the fact that as proposed the elevated road has the potential of high rate of accidents. The constraint appears to be high cost of land acquisition for the reason the area is densely populated. It is urban. Cost of the acquisition would be for urban land.

¶29

3. The reply filed by the NHAI admits deviations from the norms prescribed by the Indian Road Congress but it is pleaded that the deviations are minor. It is pleaded that the Indian Road Congress Norms/Guidelines have been followed to the extent they can. The reply admits that the project has been designed with minimum land acquisition.

¶30

4. The reply by NHAI evades a response to the points highlighted in para 4.4 and para 4.9 of the writ petition and more so para 4.14 where the writ petitioner has with reference to the norms of Indian Road Congress highlighted the flaws in the design of the elevated road.

¶31

5. This Court would require expert opinion on the proposed project report.

¶32

6. Learned counsel for the parties agree that an opinion may be called for from the Central Road Research Institute, Delhi. 7. Accordingly, we direct NHAI to submit all papers concerning the design of the flyover in the city of Udaipur to CRRI, Delhi. Further, such other documents which may be required by the said Institute would also be furnished by the NHAI. Keeping in view the Indian Road Congress Norms, CRRI, Delhi would furnish a

¶33

(3 of 3)

¶34

[CW-6801/2018]

¶35

report to this Court within four weeks of receipt of the present order along with the necessary documents from NHAI. The report would be on the issue whether the design of the elevated road is as per safety norms. We direct NHAI to obtain a certified copy of the present order and along with the design of the elevated road submit the same in the office of the Director, CRRI, Delhi. Such expenses as would be required to be paid by CRRI, Delhi would be paid by NHAI.

¶36

8. Renotify after six weeks. Interim orders to continue.“

¶37

In Application No.02/2018 NHAI has informed that estimated cost to carry out the necessary exercise and submit a report by CRRI was ₹ 30,24,930/-, and that on account of high cost of acquisition of land, a decision has been taken to withdraw the advertisement inviting technical bids from eligible parties, but without disclosing whether the proposed Elevated Road Project is withdrawn. It is pleaded that NHAI shall not continue with present Project without seeking prior approval of this Court.

¶38

Under the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of binding NHAI to the stand taken by it in Misc. Application No.02/2018.

¶39

Should in future NHAI desire to revive the Project, as it is or with modification, in terms of the pleadings of NHAI, prior approval from this Court would be taken.

¶40

We clarify if Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur intends to the construct elevated road, even it would seek prior approval from this Court.

¶41

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶42

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶43

Sanjay/10

Om Prakash Khatri and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Khatri and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs the Commissioner

State of Rajasthan Vs Prithvi Raj Songara

State of Rajasthan Vs Banti

Yogesh Ojha Vs State and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Suman

State and Ors. Vs Ganpat Singh