HI6H COURTOF CHHATTIS6ARH. BILA5PUR W.P.No. 1878^006 COftAWt; Hon'ble Shri S.R.NAyAK, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, Judge PETTH.ONER 1.^^ RE5PONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Nagar Vikash Parishad , Akaltara, through its president Mohan Lawanya aged about 64 yeotf-s s/o Prabhu Dayal Lawanya R/o Mohan Niwas Thana ftoad, Akaltara, bistt'-janjgir Champa VERSUS State of Chhatt'isgwh, ttirough the Secrelary, P.W.D. (Bridge Corporation) D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.&. (Bridge Corporation) O.K.S. Bhawcui.Raipur Executive Gngineer, P.W.t). (Bridge Corporation), BitdSpur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Senerai Mana9er, South-East Central Railway, Bilaspur, district-Bilaspur Oi'rector, Town and Cbuntry Plcuining, O.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur. 't Shri Vi^inu S'oshta, Coun%f for •ttie petitioner. 5hri Prashant Mishro, Add\. i4dvocote fieneral with Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. ©overnmentAdvocate for ttie State. ORAL OR&ER (Passed on 26-04-2006) The following oral order of the Court' was poesed by S.R. Nayak. C.J. The action of the responcfents proposing to constmct an over- bridge at the Railway crossing jn Saloda Road in Akaltara town has been cissailed in this Writ Petition claiming it to be a Public Interest Litigation, by Nagar Vikash Parishad, Akcxltara represented by its President on %veral grounds such as, (i) that the oyer-bridge cannot be constructed without permission of the Pollution Contro! Board: (ii) -A- C-- that the construction of over-bridge result in cuft-ing of about 100 trees; (iii) th'at the proposed site for construction of over-bridge could not serve the purpose for which it is constructed ond it could be conveniently constructed at d different point and (iv) that even the Raihway Board in his meeting hetd on 03-05-2005 hos agreed to consider the proposal to change the site for construction of over- bridge if it receives a request fronn the State Sovemment in that regard. 2. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, we do not find any substantive ground to step in under Article-226 of the Constitution of India and to enterl-ain this Public Interest Litigation. Although above grounds are taken in support of this Writ Petition at page-6 of the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press first contention obviously, because, such obligation could not be traced with reference to any public law. In support of the second contention, our attention was drawn to Rule l(b) of the Rules framed by the State fiovemment in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) and clau^ (Ixi) of sub-section (2) of Section 258 read with Section $4 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and it was contended that since that Rule appties, in the facts and circumstances of •ttiis case, the respondents cannot cut the 100 trees existing thepein within the prohibited distance and in that view of the matl'er, constmction of over-bridge without permission of the fiovemftient would be illegal. The contention is misconceived. Rule l(b) has no opplication to the facts oind circums-hances of this case. Rule l(b) provides that no tree shall be cut, girdled or otherwise damaged among other si-hjations covered therein if such tree is situated within 15 meters of the centre of a road or a cart-track and within 6 meters of footpath. That only means that if there exists a road or cart-track or foolpath, as the case may be, the tree situated within the prescribed distance from •the centre of road or cart-track or foot-path, as the case may ^7 -s- be, riiall not be cut or removed. That provision has no application where the respondents are to construct over-bridge. 3. The feasibility oaid suitability of constructing an over-bridge at a particutar point is the matt-er to be decided by the respondent- authorities who are supposed to be experts in the field taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances to subserve the pubtic interest. They cannot be dictated by a tegal local body like the petitioner who could not be regarded as an oqsert in the fietd to its liking. Be that as it may, it is neither plaaded nor shown that the respondent- authorities have decided to construct over-bridge at the Railway crossing on Baloda Road with ony utterior motive and/or for asny extraneous consideration. Unless the proposed action is diown to be niah fide. it is not the legitimute domain of the Court' to step in under Article-226 of the Constitution of India to correct the decision taken by the respondents. 4. There is no need to deal with the last contention. If the Raifway Board is willing to consider the request of the petitjoner to change the point at which over-bridge has to be constructed if it receives a proposal in that regard from the State ©ovemment,the petitioner can persuade the State Sovemment to do so accordingty. Nobody can question that liberly of -the petitioner. 5. Cumulatively, we do not find any ground whatsoever to entertain this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge -4:0»TA-