The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that merely because people have to travel little more will not be a ground to interfere with the decision of experts for identifying the site for construction of the bridge,which is already in progress.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by three persons,who are residents of Village Sendur, Tehsil Balrampur, DistrictBalrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh pleading that the respondent authorities earlier inspected the spot and had finalized construction of a bridge on main Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) road on Tatapani Sarpunchpara toKapildewpur Mosapara Road across Sendur river. The respondent authorities subsequently changed the place of construction of the bridge across Sendur river, which is not on PMGSY road. Due to the change of site of construction of the bridge across Sendur river now, the connecting road to the bridge will go through forest area and will be 5 Kms. away from the Village Panchayat, Sendur, due to which, residents of Village Panchayat, Sendur will face various kinds of difficulties and problems to cross Sendur river through the bridge. Change of site for construction of bridge is without cancelling the earlier sanction order of bridge and sought for following reliefs :
“10.1 This Hon’ble Court, be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the earlier sanction for construction of the bridge passed by themselves from Across Sindur River onTatapani Sarpunchapara To KapildewpurMasapara Road.
10.2 It is also prayed that this Hon’ble Courtbe pleased to direct by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to conduct an inquiry the entire case related to PMGSY scheme by independent agency against the, into the allegations made by the petitioners. ThisHon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to 6 constructed the Bridgeover the sendur River in PMGSY Road,earlier sanction for construction of the bridge passed by themselves from Across SindurRiver on Tatapani Sarpunchpara ToKapildewpur Masapara Road.
10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners.
10.4 That, any other relief, which the petitioner is entitled and this Hon’ble Courtdeems fit may kindly, be granted to the petitioners.”
Dheerendra Pandey, counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per his information, a bridge across Sendur river isto be constructed connecting PMGSY road. Respondent authoritiesafter visiting the site and also considering technical aspects, finalized construction of a bridge across Sendur river on connecting PMGSY road from Tatapani Sarpunchpara to Kapildewpur Mosapara Road.Surprisingly, petitioners and other residents of the village came to learnthat the location / site of construction of the bridge has been changed by the authorities without cancelling the earlier approved place. It is submitted that the new site selected by the respondent authorities for construction of the bridge is about 5 Kms. away from Village Panchayat,Sendur and approach road will go through the forest land. VillagePanchayat, Sendur, considering the difficulty to be faced by villagers and school going children, conducted a meeting on 28.09.2021 andpassed resolution for submitting an application / objection before the Collector and accordingly, application was submitted mentioning that due to construction of bridge on present place(changed place), lands of many villagers / farmers are being affected.They may lose their lands due to construction of bridge at new places and villagers have to travel 5 Kms. extra distance. Representation /application / objection submitted before the Collector is signed by many villagers. The representation was also submitted before theCommissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur. He contended that work of construction in the new place is in progress and therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents for stopping of work and to construct the bridge in an earlier approved place over PMGSY road.
Per contra, H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy AdvocateGeneral, appearing for the State submitted that submission of counsel for the petitioners that earlier location finalized and approved for construction of bridge across Sendur river is on the existingPMGSY road in between Tatapani Sarpunchpara to KapildewpurMosapara Road. However, he submits that at the time of first inspection and finalization of subject location for construction of the bridge,Officers failed to take note of passing of 132 K.V. overhead electricity supply line, over the proposed bridge alignment at the old location. If thebridge is to be constructed at the earlier approved location acrossSendur river, the height of lower 132 K.V. overhead electricity supply line will be less than the permissible height from the highest point of the bridge. When the Officers visited the spot (old place) before starting construction of the bridge and inspected the spot, they realised that 132 K.V. a high tension line is crossing over the bridge alignment.
As General Arrangement Drawing , it is shown that the Finished Road Level (FRL) of a high level bridge is 94.20 meter as the lower high tension overhead cable wire is passing from very near to the alignment of the bridge.Relative Level (RL), as per survey, of the cable will be 98.84 meter,whereas FRL of the bridge is 94.20. Electrical field in 132 K.V. electricity supply cable is within 6 – 6.5 meter. He contended that the affidavit of the Executive Engineer supported with inspection report and other documents are filed. He pointed out that after the change of place for construction of the bridge, now construction of the bridge is also in progress and about 42% of total work is completed by the contractor. Hesubmitted that due to change of site of construction of bridge acrossSendur river, there is no variation in cost of construction.
While considering the PIL the Bench noted that the main grievance raised in this PIL is that respondent authorities without cancelling the first approved site for construction of bridge have changed the place for construction of bridge and started construction of a bridge at new site, which will cause problems to villagers as they have to cover about 5 Kms. long distance.
One of the important facts in the PIL which the Court observed that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities for change of place for construction of high level bridge across Sendur river is, crossing of high tension overhead electricity cable over the alignment of bridge,the gap in between overhead high tension cable and bridge is only4.64 meters, whereas electrical field of the 132 K.V. electricity supply is 6 – 6.5 meters. This was found by the inspecting team consisting of four technical persons including Sub Engineer, Assistant Engineer,Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer of the Department.Inspection report further mentions that the gap between alignment of high tension wire and FRL of bridge is 4.64 meter, and therefore, on the given alignment, construction of bridge will not be safe. Theinspection report signed by Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer,Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran goes to show that on the given alignment, construction of bridge across Sendur river will not besafe. From the documents placed on record by the respondents,particularly, inspection report submitted by four member team it appears that change of place is only for the safety purpose.
Pleading with regard to the reasons for change of place of construction of high level bridge based on the report in reply is not controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. There is no assertion in the petition that there is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners.
The document placed along with the affidavit by the respondents, which is a line diagram, signed by the ExecutiveEngineer shows that now high tension 132 K.V. overhead electricity line will not cross at the bridge but will cross the approach road of the bridge at the new site. Though the length of approach road has now been increased and the length of bridge is reduced, there is no variation of cost of construction of the bridge as stated by counsel for the State.What could not be overlooked is the safety of people at large, who will use and travel through the bridge. No compromise can be made with security and safety of the public at large , observed the Bench.
The Executive Engineer stated that the new construction site is government land. The Inspection report of the StateQuality Monitor and Bridge Expert also mentions that approach land is government land. This fact is also not controverted by filing rejoinder to the statement on affidavit. In view of above, the submission of counsel for petitioner that the land is forest land is not acceptable.
” As there is no counter pleading to the reasons assigned for change of place of construction of a high level bridge, merely because people have to travel little more will not be a ground to interfere with the decision of experts for identifying the site for construction of the bridge,which is already in progress. In other words, it can also be said that keeping in mind the safety of people from the electrical field, respondent authorities have changed the location of the bridge and the same appears to be in the public interest’, the order reads.