Uday Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1,

3, 4 & 6, and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 5 and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage

of admission.

This writ petition is filed in public interest by a resident of Ringalgarh village, Patti Saklana, P.O. Ringalgarh, Tehri Garhwal district, aggrieved by

the failure of the respondents to construct an 8.5 kilometer long Ringalgarh motor road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, which is to be

connected to KM-43 of Rajpur-Kumalda-Kadukhal motor road according to the survey report dated 11.09.2018; and, instead, in issuing a tender,

published on 28.11.2019, for laying a road in an alternate route.

It is the petitioner’s case that construction of the road is in public interest, since it caters to the needs of several villagers; the alternative road,

which is proposed to be laid, would involve cutting of around 800 trees, whereas 400 trees would have to be cut for construction of the road as sought

for by the petitioner; despite the villagers giving representations on 27.02.2020 and 17.06.2020, no action has been taken so far; the survey, conducted

earlier, shows that it is feasible to construct the road, which the petitioner has sought for in this writ petition; the action of the respondents, in ignoring

the survey report and in proceeding to construct the road through an alternative route, is arbitrary and illegal, and necessitates this Court’s

interference.

While the lack of road facilities in the subject village, rendering it inaccessible, may necessitate an enquiry in larger public interest, the scope of any

such enquiry is extremely limited. Questions regarding whether a road should be laid in terms of the tender notification issued on 28.11.2019 or,

instead, it is more appropriate to construct a road, as sought for by the petitioner in the light of the survey conducted earlier and with respect to which

a report was submitted on 11.09.2018, are all matters in the executive realm.

While we are impressed with the submission that the route, suggested by the petitioner, may involve cutting of lesser number of trees and may,

thereby, reduce environmental degradation, funds for laying roads are in terms of a Scheme under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. It is for

the authorities concerned to take an appropriate decision in these matters and not for Courts, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, to

direct.

While the petitioner claims that the Gram Pradhan has already submitted two representations, we permit the petitioner to make another

representation furnishing all such details as he considers relevant, to the second-respondent. If any such representation is submitted within two weeks

from today, the second-respondent shall examine the contents of the representation; assess whether laying of the road as suggested by the petitioner is

more beneficial both in terms of furthering larger public interest, and in safeguarding environment; and then pass a reasoned order and communicate

the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed by the second-respondent and such an order being communicated

to the petitioner, shall be completed with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s

representation.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.