Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses PIL seeking respondents to set construction of proposal of unfeasible Railway Over Bridge

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents to set aside the construction of the proposal of this unnecessary and unfeasible Railway Over Bridge (R.O.B.) at Level Crossing (L.C.) No. 398 at Tilda.

U. N.S. Deo , counsel for the petitioner, submits that there being no adequate space for the same and inspite of an already existing and functional ROB at LC 397 at Tilda within a short distance of less than 1 K.M. Despite there being protest by the elected public representatives as well as protest by people from all walks of life and despite recommendation of concerned technical officials of the PWD, the respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer Pwd (Bridges)) and respondent No. 4 (Union Of India) are going ahead in full swing for the construction of the unnecessary and unwarranted second ROB instead of creation of by-pass as proposed in the Tilda-Newra Development Plan (2031), the already underway construction of ROB at LC No. 401 upon completion alongwith the bypass providing connectivity to Bartori-Nakti-Tilda Industrial Area and construction of a Railway Under Bridge (RUB) will solve the very purpose of this unnecessary second ROB seeks to achieve.

Tushar Dhar Diwan, Standing Counsel for the Union of India submitted that in a meeting held between the Railways and the State Government on 09.11.2017, a lot of discussion was done in which as per serial No. 10, it was decided to construct Road Under Bridge and Road Over Bridge at Level Crossing No. 398 based upon survey by the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government submitted an estimate for construction of RUB and ROB at LC No. 398. After receiving the same, Respondent Railway processed the note for obtaining sanction from the Railway Board and the work was sanctioned on 30.08.2018. The memorandum of understanding between the Railways and the State Government is under finalization. Moreover, as per the letter dated 20.09.2022, the Collector Raipur has given permission for closure of LC No. 398 after construction of the RUB and ROB. In view of the safety and protection of all the users, the above ROB and RUB is required. LC No. 398 gate have special classification in which Train Vehicle Units (TVU) is 378432 per day. LC No. 398 is a busy gate and it is utilized for passing Heavy Vehicle, agriculture vehicle and public transport.

The distance between LC No. 398 and functional ROB at LC No. 397 is 1.145 KM and it is not a matter of distance less than 1 KM between two ROB or RUB but level crossing cannot be closed without construction of ROB or RUB. Hence, the construction of the same is necessary with safety point of view. The construction of the said ROB has been decided after a lot of survey and inspection. Physical site survey was jointly done by the Railways and the State Government. The petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that there is no substance in the instant writ petition. He would draw the attention of the Court to the document i.e. communication dated 31.03.2023 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (Zone-West), in which the Competent Authority in the Ministry of has approved the work of construction of various ROBs and RUBs under the SETU Bandhan under the CRIF Scheme in the State of Chhattisgarh.

Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents opposed the petition and submitted that it is a vague and frivolous petition which deserves to be dismissed outrightly. The ROB and RUB are constructed for the welfare of the public at large after detailed inspection and survey. He further rely on the document i.e. communication dated 26.12.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Public Works Department, to the Chief Engineer (Zone-4) which is on the subject of memorandum of understanding (MoU) for proposed implementation of ROBs/RUBs on State Road under Central Road Infrastructure Fund Scheme (CRIF). The Union of India, vide order dated 31.03.2023 had approved the construction of ROB and RUB at LC No. 398 under the Setu Bandhan under CRIF and accordingly, the Department is under the process of issuing tender. The present petition filed by the petitioner is vague and being bereft of merit is liable to be dismissed.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey noted that the Union Government and the State Government both are involved in construction of the ROB and the RUB. Any construction of such a large structures are being done only after proper feasibility study, site survey, inspection and various tests carried on by the concerned authorities. How the construction of ROB is going to cause any hamper or hindrance to the public at large is beyond understanding. It is for the experts to decide as to whether the said ROB is required or not and the Court cannot steps into the shoes of experts which requires specialised knowledge and information.

“It is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. “

The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.