Disposed

Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttarkahand

Uttarakhand HC6 Oct 2021WPPIL/169/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL regarding the alignment of a proposed motor road. While acknowledging the petitioner's view that realignment would benefit all five hamlets of a Gram Panchayat, the Court, due to lack of technical expertise, dismissed it but granted liberty to approach the Superintendent Engineer with a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, with a representation within two weeks for reconsideration of road alignment.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Uttarkah… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 6^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 169 of 2021

¶9

6^th October, 2021

¶10

Between:

¶11

Rajendra Singh		and	.....Petitioner
State of Uttarak	hand	and others.	…....Respondents
Counsel for petitioner.	the	:Dushyant Girish Ch Advocates.	Mainali and Mr. andra Lakhchura,
Counsel for State.	the	: Mr. Tarun Brief Holde	Lakhera, learned r.

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

JUDGEMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

¶14

Petitioner is resident of village Manila Baseri, Basnal (Hanad), Kuridhar, Manila, District Almora.

¶15

According to the petitioner, a motor road, which

¶16

is proposed between Tol Budhani to Ratkhal, passes only

¶17

through one hamlet of Gram Panchayat Tol Budhani, thus, the other four hamlets of Gram Panchayat Tol Budhani would not be getting any benefit of the said road. Petitioner wants the proposed road to be realigned so that it passes through all the five hamlets of Gram Panchayat Tol Budhani, to ensure maximum benefit to the villagers.

¶18

From perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition, it is apparent that State Government has granted financial sanction for construction of the proposed road and the alignment of the road has also been approved.

¶19

Alignment of road has to be decided considering various aspects and this Court is not well equipped to deal with technical aspects of road construction. However, having regard to the allegations made in the writ petition that majority of the villagers would be left out from benefit of the road if alignment is not improved, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the concerned Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department by making a representation within two weeks from today. If such representation is made, Superintendent Engineer concerned shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within ten weeks from the date of receipt of such representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

¶20

¶21

It goes without saying that, while taking any decision, the concerned Superintendent Engineer shall hear all the stakeholders, particularly the persons who are likely to be adversely affected by any change in alignment of the road.

¶22

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶23

_____________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

¶24

Dt:6^th October, 2021 Mamta/Neha

¶25

Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttarkahand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttarkahand

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

Westerngeco International Ltd. Vs Additional Director Of Income Tax

Westerngeco International Ltd. Vs Assistant Director Of Income Tax

Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Commissionerate Vs M/s Bee Am Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Gauri Maulekhi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kunwar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madhavi Sanjay Goswami Vs Uttarakhand Ayurved University through Its Registrar