The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, dismissed a public interest litigation alleging deviation from an approved plan for a road over bridge and lack of slip lanes on NH-112. The Court found the construction complied with all norms after reviewing a Court Commissioner's report and defence clearance regarding national security.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2642/2021
----Petitioners
(2 of 7)
[CW-2642/2021]
----Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
J U D G M E N T
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ::: 19/ 12/2022 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON ::: 22/11/2022
BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE MEHTA, J.)
1 . The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation in relation to the alleged deviation from the approved structural plan for widening of the NH-112 (Bar-Banar Section and ROB at the Three-Way Junction) near the Banar Village.
2 . Learned counsel Shri Aidan Choudhary representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that in the previous round, when the petitioners realised that the respondent NHAI was constructing the Highway by deviating from the originally approved structural plan wherein, a flyover/ over bridge was proposed to be constructed at the Three-Way Junction near the Banar village, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.10749/2019 wherein, the respondents submitted an affidavit that the road over bridge would be constructed and on this
(3 of 7)
[CW-2642/2021]
assurance, the Court accepted this assertion of the respondents and accordingly, writ petition was disposed of. However, subsequently, the respondents proceeded to construct the Highway without the road over bridge. Furthermore, the construction of the road, as it exists, has been done without adhering to the mandatory requirements of the Indian Road Congress Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IRC Guidelines’). Appropriate slip lanes have not been provided near the locations where there are public facilities, school, etc. thereby causing a serious hazard for the school children. On these grounds, Shri Choudhary implored the Court to accept the writ petition and direct the respondents to construct a road over bridge as per the assurance given in this Court or in the alternative, to create slip lanes for the entire stretch of the road.
3 . Considering the nature of averments made by the petitioners, this Court had, by a detailed order dated 20.10.2021, posed certain questions to the respondents. After receiving the response of the respondents, this court, by order dated 24.01.2022, appointed Shri Devi Lal Vyas as Court Commissioner to visit the road in question and to prepare a local site plan with all the relevant measurements. Consequent thereto, the Court Commissioner prepared the report and submitted it on record on 15.03.2022. The copy of the report has been provided to the counsel representing the petitioners.
4 . In reply and counter affidavits filed by the NHAI, it has been pleaded that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The road in question has been constructed with the strict adherence to the
(4 of 7)
[CW-2642/2021]
provisions contained in the National Highways Rules 1956 and the IRC Guidelines, 2014. Widening of the four strip lanes was carried out by acting upon the design prepared by the technical experts. The construction of the highway in question was completed well before the earlier PIL came to be filed and the present writ petition has been filed with oblique motives. Shri Joshi placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 3210 and implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition with heavy cost.
5 . At the outset, we may note that the petitioners heavily relied upon the proceedings of the earlier Writ Petition No.10749/2019 (Parbat Dan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein, the NHAI submitted an affidavit to the effect that the widening project would be in accordance with the approved structural plan. As per the petitioners, in the originally approved structural plan, there was a proposal to raise construction of a road over bridge. However, a perusal of the affidavit filed by Shri S.K. Mishra, Project Director in the said PIL, which has been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure-2, indicates that the lanes in question are falling within 500 meters from the sensitive military installations. The defence officials intimated the NHAI officials that construction of the proposed over bridge would have an impact on the sensitive military installations and could pose a threat to the national security and thus, after getting served of this communication of the defence officials, the NHAI officials were left with no option except to review the over bridge in question.
(5 of 7)
[CW-2642/2021]
We have perused the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this court in the writ petition filed by Parbat and another and find that there is no indication in this order that the NHAI would be constructing a road over bridge at the location in question.
6 . Having gone through the pleadings of the parties, the report of the Court Commissioner Shri Devi Lal Vyas and the site plan and DPRs placed on record, we find that widening of the highway in question had been carried out strictly in accordance with the National Highway Rules and the IRC Guidelines, 2014. While finally arguing the matter, Shri Aidan Choudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioners, only limited his arguments to the non-construction of the slip lanes at certain portions of the roads, however, Shri Sunil Joshi, Advocate representing the NHAI, submitted that the requirement of constructing the slip lanes is governed by the flow of the traffic. As per Shri Joshi, after taking the complete traffic senses figures, the slip lanes had been constructed in the urban areas adjoining the section of the highway. The area of the road, which was referred to by the petitioners’ counsel alleging that the slip lanes have not been constructed, is beyond the sanctioning stretch of the highways and in the rural area where there is no requirement of constructing the slip lanes. Despite that, the NHAI officials had taken all the safety measures.
7 . We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material placed on record.
(6 of 7)
[CW-2642/2021]
8 . First of all, we would like to emphasize that the plea taken by the petitioners’ counsel that the NHAI has constructed the road contrary to the assurance given in Writ Petition No.10749 is totally unfounded. We have extensively considered the affidavit of Shri S.K. Mishra, referred to supra, and find that in this affidavit, it was emphatically mentioned that the proposal to construct the road over bridge was not found viable because of the reservations conveyed by the defence officials. It is not in dispute that the road in question is very closeby to sensitive defence installations and hence, any construction around such area would have to be undertaken by keeping the interest and security of the defence installations as a paramount consideration. After receiving the affidavit of the NHAI official, the writ petition No.10749/2019 was dismissed by this Court finding that all proposals of the road widening were compliant of law. The petitioners have admittedly filed the instant writ petition after the road widening and construction of the highway was completed. After having considered the submissions made at bar, this Court appointed Shri Devi Lal Vyas as Court Commissioner and his report is sufficient to satisfy the Court that construction of the road is being undertaken strictly as per the applicable norms, rules and the Indian Road Congress Guidelines, 2014.
9 . The last ditch effort of the petitioners’ counsel to question the bonafides of the NHAI officials was pertaining to nonconstruction of a slip lane. However, we find that the said submission is also devoid of merit because slip lanes have been constructed on both the sides of the road where the stretch
(7 of 7)
[CW-2642/2021]
passes through the urban area. As has been pointed out by Shri Joshi through an affidavit of the NHAI official, the construction of the slip lane is dependent on the width of the road. The traffic senses figures, which have been presented on record, would clearly indicate that neither the width of the road nor the extent of the slip lanes, are inadequate.
10 . Thus, we find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Tikam Daiya/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the National Highways Authority of India violated its assurance to construct a road over bridge as per the approved structural plan near Banar Village.
Whether the widening of the highway was carried out in compliance with the National Highway Rules and IRC Guidelines 2014.
Whether the respondents were obligated to construct slip lanes given the traffic flow and surrounding area conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty & Ors.Referred¶36
AIR 2011 SC 3210 · Who else cites this
Parbat Dan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.Explained¶303947
Writ Petition No.10749/2019
Ram Singh
Ramdeen
Chautha Ram
Bhera Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Union Of India
Sandeep Mehta
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
