DEEN DAYAL BHATT vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.JÂ Â Â Â Â Â

This public interest litigation has been filed seeking the following relief:

“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to construct and maintain the CC Road known as

‘Ramsay Road through Joyvilla to East Bellevue, Tallital Nainital’ as per the detailed estimates and PWD norms and the government fund

which is sanctioned for this be used fully and properly so that the entire residents of the aforesaid area may not face any difficulty as entering of rainy

water and drainage into their residences.â€​Â

In short, the case of the petitioner appears to be as follows:

Earlier Writ Petition (PIL) No. 50 of 2009 was filed before this Court pertaining to connect and maintain the area of Joyvilla to Vellview East, Tallital

to provide the easy approachable road to the residents of the Joyvilla to Vellview compound Tallitall for plying light vehicles. Certain directions were

issued by this Court vide Annexure No. 1. It is complained, however, that pursuant to the said directions, the respondents just to save their skin

widened the aforesaid C.C. Road, but during the widening of the road, drainage system, canal along the road, thickness, quality of the concrete cement

surface material of the road have been totally ignored and the work has not been done as per the detailed estimates of PWD norms. The road, at

present, is totally damaged as the C.C. of the road was not done after scrubbing the old C.C. Consequently, surface of the C.C. road has arisen up

in most of the places, which results in rainy water and drainage entering into the residences of the nearby residents. Petitioner filed Annexure Nos.

3, 4 and 5 representations. Annexure No. 6 purports to be a letter dated 10.12.2014 issued by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Nainital.Â

There was again a joint representation made to the District Magistrate, Nainital and Executive Engineer, PWD, Nainital. It is on this basis that the

petitioner has sought the relief, which we have already noted. Â

A counter affidavit has been filed. Therein, it is inter alia stated as follows:

“A- That the petitioner has filed the writ petition with the relief to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the

respondents to renovate and maintain the CC Road known as ‘Ramsay Road through Joyvilla to East Bellevue, Tallital, Nainital’ as per the

detailed estimates and PWD norms and the government fund, which is sanctioned for this be used fully and properly, so that the entire residents of the

aforesaid area may not face any difficulty as entering of rainy water and drainage into their residence.Â

B- That it is submitted that though, the writ petition has been preferred only with regard to renovate and maintain the CC road known as ‘Ramsay

Road through Joyvilla to East Bellevue, Tallital, Nainital’. However, the answering respondent department has executed an agreement on 3-1-

2014 with M/s Woodhill Company Ltd. for the renovation and maintenance of all the internal roads of the Nainital town and as per the terms of the

aforesaid agreement, all the major internal roads of the Nainital town are required to be renovated maintained.Â

C- That it is submitted that as far as the Joyvilla to East Bellevue, Tallital, Nainital road is concerned, no further construction over the said road is to

be made and only maintenance is to be carried out by constructing 10 Cm. CC road over the existing road, It is further, submitted that not only this

particular road, the different internal roads like Overy Road, Gurni House Road, Upper Ayarpata Road, Velview Road, Mayvilla Road, Blaith Cottage

Road, Upper China Mall, Sonwview Road, Breside Road, Bo Cottage Road, Steyford House Road, Kolvin Road, are being maintained in accordance

with the standard prescribed and as per the estimate.Â

D- That it is further submitted that the answering respondent department continuously monitors, not only the quality of the construction, but also that

timely progress is achieved and further different samples at a different time are being collected and have sent for examination to have the quality

control. It is submitted that one of such sample sent on 9th June, 2014 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this affidavit. It is

further submitted that the said sample was sent and report was submitted on 12th August, 2013 and 13th August, 2014 in which it is clear that the

work has been carried out as per the standard prescribed by the department. It is further submitted that on 19-2-2015 and 23-3-2015 with respect to

cement concrete pavement work for compressive strength test and for the requisite width of work, the I.T. Roorkee has been requested to do the

requisite test and further, in compliance of such request, the expert of the IIT, Roorkee, had collected the sample on 6th September, 2015 and 7th

September, 2015 and the report of such samples is being awaited.Â

E- That it is submitted that since, there do occur sudden change of climate in Nainital town and a result of which, at time, the quality of construction

work deteoriats to some extent and in this regard, the appropriate communication is being issued to the concerned contractor to remove such

deficiency, the moment the climate is favourable. Further, it is submitted that final payment of contractor firm is to be made only after, all the quality

control test are being carried out and further all the deficiencies pointed out by the department will be rectified. It is further, submitted that the

repeated communications have been issued to the contractor firm to carry out the requisite construction work. Further, it is submitted that the

answering respondent department has issued a clear cut instruction to the contractor firm that appropriate measures for preserving the drainage

system as well as to protect from water logging should be made. It is submitted that as far as with regard to the certain maintenance work,

representations have also been made by the local residents and all such representations have duly been considered and every efforts have been made

to redress all such grievance.Â

There is no representation on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. According to Mr. Mukesh Kaparwan, learned counsel holding brief of

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 and Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

nos. 5 and 7, they have no role and it is for the State.Â

We record the submissions contained in the counter affidavit. We further, however, direct that the authorities concerned i.e. respondent nos. 2

and 3 will continuously monitor the condition of the road and do the needful so that the road is maintained in a roadworthy way and as contemplated in

law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed.   Â