\ H16H COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISOARH: Bjy^SPJUR EMVISIONBtENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. Writ Petitjon N0,4221 of 2006 PETITIQNER : Chhattisgaift Chamber of Commerce & Industries having Its office at Jute Mill Road, Kabir Chowk, Raigarh through Ghanshyam Bansal, S/o Shri Dulichand Bansal, aged about 55 years, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), having Auttiorized under letter of v^ authority dated 15-04-06 under Resolution dated 15-04-2006 of Chhattisgarh Chamber of Commerce & Industries, Raipur Unit at Raigarh (ChhaWsgarh) VERSUS RESPpNDENTS 1. Sterte of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Chief Engineer, NaUonal Hlghway & Bridge Constructton, Public Works Department, Raipur (ChhatUsgarh) 3. Divisional Railway Manager, SouUi East Central Raihway, Bilaspur Dwision, Bilaspur 4. Chief Bridge Engineer, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Dwision, Bilaspur 5. Coltector, District Raigarh (ChhatBsgarh) Present: Shri Manindra Shrivastava, leamed Sr. Advocate wlth Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Oy. A.G. with Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A. for respondents No. 1,2 and 5. Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Sr. Advocate witti Shri Naryayan Shr'ivastava, leamed counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4. ORALQRDER {Passedoni6u'August, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK, CJ. '•V '\ W-, b '• / •^-.- ^).. ;1 ( ; This writ petition is filed by Chhattisgarh Chamber of Commerce & Industries as a Public Interest Litgation. It is comptained that the proposat to construct Railway Over-Bridge at Sarangarh railway cross at Raigarh is neither financially expedient nor technicatly feasible. In paragraphs 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 of ttie writ petition it is contended as follows: "5.9 That, it is pertinent to mention here that because of consfruction of ROB, it is likely to incur expenditure to the tune of Rs. 11.43 Crores as te ctear from the letter dated 2-12-2004 of Collector Raigarh to SEC Rly (Ann®xure_._P-4). On the confrary, if ttiere is serious consideration of attemative RUB to be constructed at the same place, it will serve public purpose in many ways. Firsfly, construction of RUB incurs too less expenditure as compared to the construction of ROB. fts against an expected expenditure of Rs. 11.43 Grores at present, which is likely to be increasecl in future, construcBon of RUB will not require expenditure of more Bian Rs. 2 Crores. This esttmate is being made on the basis of informatton taken from an Architect/Engineer. Moreover, the constructfon of RUB will be of great convenisnce to tte poor peopte who will be using the under bridg®as most <rf them are not having 4 wheelers or 2 wheelers and they are etther pedestrians- peopte walking on the road, bullock-carts, handcrafts ete. There are seyeral RUBs, which are successfully operating at many places, e.g. Raipur, Nagpur, Bhopal, Jabatpur eta., which are very conveniently managing much more trafRc than what exists at Raigarh at Sarangarh Railway Crossing. Saving of public exchequer is a very relevant and material issue. 5.10 That, the grievance of the petitioner is that the proposal for feasibility of construction of RUB has never been given a serious conskleration at all at any level y ^- i?.^ 3 whether it be at potitteat level or whether it be at technical tevel. Petitioner is sure that if the feasibility examination of under brklge at Sarangarh Railway crossing is taken up, even the Railway authoriUes may agree to such a proposal because in the matter of construction of ROB botti Raihvay as well as the State Govemment have to bear the costs in equal proport'ons as is clearing from the letters annexed hereinabove. 5.11 That, construction of bridges, roads, culverts ete., is meant for public convenience. While Uie interest of the pubBc, which is going to use those facilities, which is paramount, coupted with the interest of public exchequer, wams a due consideration of petitroner's representafon at appropriate level by the Government. However, instead of considering the proposal in its proper perspwth/e, ignorlng Uie demand of the public at large, respondente have proceeded to collect material for constructton of ROB even though the Raihray has again and again issued letters that without due sanction and approval consbuctton shoutd not be started. One such letter dated 19-06-20)6 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE P-5." (2) At ttie ttireshold, it needs to be ncrticed that the subject matter brought before the Court shoukl squarely fall vrithin the domain of the technocrats and other officials who are supposed to be experts in the field and ttie decision taken by them cannot lightty be intertered witti by fte Court, obviously because, the Court is ill-suited to apprwiate such decision and sit in judgment over such decision as a supreme technocrat^ expert. We have one more reason not to entertain this writ petition at fliis stage, because, any interference has the effect of haulting and postponing Uie construcUon of over-bridge and if it happens, it is trite, it will be prejudicial to the public interest in general and travelling public in *-» particular. Furthermore. nottiing is placed before the Court which could convince us that the construction of over-brklge at Sarangarh raihway cross at Raigarh would be against the public interest. For all these reasons. we dismiss the writ petition. Nocosts. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^-•---1 'Y L