IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition PIL No. 52 of 2009 Darban Singh Kapkoti & others. .……… Petitioners Versus Union of India & others. .………. Respondents Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The petitioners had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a direction to the respondents to construct a motor road from Bhandari Gaon, Kapkot to Lilly in Tehsil Kapkot, district Bageshwar, according to the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2006. 2. The prayer made in the present writ petition, by itself notices, that originally the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2006 authorised the construction of the motor road under reference. It is only when the alignment of the aforesaid motor road was varied, that the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 notices, that a survey was done for the construction of the said motor road, from Bhandari Gaon, Kapkot to Lilly in Tehsil Kapkot, district Bageshwar, whereupon it emerged, that the route on which the aforesaid motor road was conceived of, was in the sensitive zone, i.e. a zone highly prone to landslides. As such, it was considered not feasible to connect Bhandari Gaon, Kapkot to Lilly in Tehsil Kapkot, district Bageshwar. In order to authenticate the aforesaid assertion, the respondents have placed on the record of the counter affidavit, a communication dated 04.07.2007, addressed by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Bageshwar, to the Superintending Engineer, PIU, First Circle, PWD, Almora. 2 3. We have perused the aforesaid communication which depicts, that a substantial portion of the contemplated motor road has again been approved, although in the approved motor road, village Bhandari Gaon has remained unconnected. Since this Court does not have the expertise on the issue of feasibility of the construction of the motor road in question, and since the experts have opined that some of the area under reference is in the sensitive zone and is highly prone to landslides, it is not possible for us to issue any formal directions, requiring the respondents to connect village Bhandari Gaon in the earlier motor road, approved vide Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2006. Accordingly, insofar as the present writ petition is concerned, it is not possible for us to issue a direction to the respondents, requiring them to construct the motor road, as was approved through the Office Memorandum dated 30.01.2006. 4. Despite the observations recorded by us herein above, we are of the view, that it is imperative for the State Government to connect all villages through a motorable road. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to determine, whether or not, Bhandari Gaon can be connected through some alternative motor road, and if the answer to the aforesaid query is in the positive, then to take action in that behalf at the earliest, preferably under the same project, under which the instant motor road was planned, namely, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, meant for linking villages through roads. 5. The instant writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 23.03.2010 23.03.2010 G