The Uttarakhand High Court imposed Rs 10,000 cost on each petitioner and dismissed two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against the laying of water pipeline through the Supana Bridge by the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Department.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the Supana Bridge is an old bridge meant for people to commute across the Alaknanda River. Laying of water pipeline has reduced the width of the bridge as also its load carrying capacity. On that account, the petitioners sought the removal of the pipeline from the Supana Bridge so that it can be restored for its original use.
The senior counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, drew the attention of the Court to a report filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirti Nagar dated 07.02.2020, to submit that the water pipeline, which has been laid, is 3 metres wide. With the laying of the said pipeline, the width of the available road has been reduced to only 4 metres from the earlier 7. Moreover, the pipeline is loading the Bridge by about 40 metric tons, thereby reducing the load carrying capacity of the bridge, which was 65-70 meters. Thus, heavy vehicles cannot ply on the Bridge after the laying of the pipeline.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate also noticed that the Bridge was earlier being used by heavy vehicles to carry materials for construction and development purposes by the stone crushers and during rescue operations. The report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate suggests that the pipeline should not be laid on the Supana Bridge.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State of Uttarakhand drew attention of the High Court to the order dated 03.03.2020, which reads as follows:-
“Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition; firstly whether it was necessary for the respondents to lay a pipeline over the Supana Bridge which is being used for transportation of goods by heavy vehicles for the past more than three decades; and secondly, whether the alternate Bridge, which the respondents claim can be used instead, has wide enough roads to carry such heavy vehicles for transportation of goods.
While the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, claims that it was wholly unnecessary for the respondents to lay a pipeline over the bridge, and that drinking water could have been supplied through an alternate route, this question necessitates examination, within the limited parameters of judicial review, on the respondents placing material before this Court explaining why they choose to lay a pipeline over the bridge and not elsewhere.
With regards the respondents’ claim that the alternate bridge can be effectively used for transportation of goods, the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that, while the bridge may by itself be able to carry the load of heavy vehicles passing through it, the road, leading to the bridge, on both sides is not wide enough to permit movement of heavy vehicles to and from the bridge.
Since these matters necessitate enquiry, we direct the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal to cause an enquiry into these aspects; and submit a report to this Court at the earliest and, in any event, within 10 days from today.
Post on 16.3.2020 in the daily list.
The reply affidavit, on behalf of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., may be filed in the Registry in the meanwhile.”
In pursuance of the said order, the Committee, constituted for the purpose of examining the issues raised by the Court, has filed its Joint Inspection Report dated 06.03.2020. This report discloses that the water pipeline was necessary since the quantity of water, available in river Alaknanda, had reduced on account of the construction of the Hydel Project. So as to supply drinking water to the villagers having a population of 1.5 lakh, the said pipeline had to be laid. The water carrying capacity of the pipeline is sufficient to serve about 2.10 lakh people in the area.
Laying of water pipeline, over Supana Bridge, was found to be technically feasible. Pertinently, the report discloses that just 2 km away from the Supana Bridge, a new Bridge has been constructed, Chauras Motor Bridge, to cater to heavy vehicular traffic. Thus, the people are not in any way prejudiced and traffic movement of vehicles is still feasible, even though the Supana Bridge cannot be put to use for transportation for heavy vehicles.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe enquired from senior counsel for the petitioners whether they have made the disclosure with regard to the existence of the said alternate Bridge at a distance of 2 km in the writ petition. There is no disclosure with regard to the said material and relevant fact. The Court held the petitioners guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts. Pertinently, even the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, relied upon by the petitioners, does not mention the existence of the alternate bridge which is just 2 km away to cater to heavy vehicular traffic, the Bench noted.
“It is unfortunate that the petitioners are seeking to object to the creation of the infrastructure to provide drinking water to the local population of about 1.5 lakh, and that too, without making full and complete disclosure in the writ petition,” observed the Bench.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitions with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000 each, to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.