IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20158 of 2010 Date of decision: 30th March, 2011 Gram Panchayat Dosanjh Kalan … Petitioner Versus Improvement Trust, Phagwara and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.2 and 3. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Gram Panchayat Dosanjh Kalan, through its Sarpanch, has approached this Court in public interest with a grievance that action of the respondents to connect ‘South Avenue’ (a group housing scheme flouted by Phagwara Improvement Trust, Phagwara on a land measuring 15.68 acres) with Phagwara-Dosanjh-Mukandpur road (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Dosanjh Kalan road’) is not only bad but imprudent too, as it will create insurmountable traffic hurdles for the general public, i.e. pedestrians and other vehicular traffic, will be a permanent source of nuisance, shall also be prone to accidents and shall cause obstructions in free flow of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian. The feasibility of the proposed road has also been doubted as according to the petitioner, the road shall run from a height of 8 Civil Writ Petition No.20158 of 2010 feet and then it will nosedive towards lower/link road with Urban Estate road. This, according to the petitioner, is against the norms prescribed for the road safety. It is further averred that for providing approach road to the proposed Colony, a bridge is required to be built on the canal, for which permission is likely to be denied by the concerned departments. This petition also questions wisdom of the policy makers to make the life of city dwellers better at the cost of ruralites. In the words of petitioner, construction of road and bridge shall cause colossal loss to the villagers and to their agricultural land. Before we examine as to whether in public interest we can redress the concerns of the petitioner or not and whether we can restrain the respondents from making construction of the road or bridge on Dosanjh Kalan road, it will be necessary for us to cull-out the facts from the writ petition, reply filed thereto and the annexures attached. Phagwara Improvement Trust (hereinafter called ‘Improvement Trust’) published a development scheme as per Section 36 of the Punjab Improvement Trust Act, 1922 for construction of six-storied HIG and MIG flats. For giving effect to the scheme, 15.68 acres of land was acquired to be developed as housing Colony and the proposed Colony was named as ‘South Avenue’. The State Level Land Acquisition Board (hereinafter referred to as, ‘SLLAB’) is headed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. SLLAB has been constituted to adjudge the feasibility, viability and various features whether the proposed acquisition will advance the public purpose or not. SLLAB, on 15th October, 2010, granted conditional No Objection Certificate to the Improvement Trust for development of South Avenue Scheme and issued a mandate that the arrangement be made for providing 60 feet wide road to the proposed Colony. From a perusal of the site plan attached with the petition at Annexure P-1, it is evident that the proposed 60 feet wide road is to provide 2 Civil Writ Petition No.20158 of 2010 access to the residents of the proposed Colony to already existing Dosanjh Kalan road. It is pleaded by the petitioner that this road is used by the inhabitants of various villages falling in Jalandhar district and also by the general public and by joining the access road, apprehensions expressed by the petitioner and noticed by us in the earlier portion of judgment shall become true. An apprehension was also raised in the petition that the Public Works Department (Bridges and Roads), Punjab is not likely to accord permission, as the proposed approach road provided to the Colony shall block the traffic and create accidents and furthermore, the Irrigation Department may not allow the respondents to construct the 60 feet wide bridge over the canal. To fortify the averments made in the writ petition, reliance has been placed upon a communication (Annexure P-4) addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala to Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the proposed 60 feet wide road, if constructed, will be uneven having dip and rise (high and low) and thus, will hinder smooth flow of traffic. In the written statement filed, the Improvement Trust has controverted the assertions made in the writ petition. It is stated that similar objections were raised by two voluntary organizations, which were overruled in a meeting of SLLAB held on 26th August, 2009 under the chairmanship of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. It is stated that the meeting was attended by all high functionaries of the State, namely the Financial Commissioner, Development and Secretary Punjab Chandigarh; Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning, Punjab; Principal Secretary Public Health; Principal Secretary PWD (B&R); Principal Secretary Finance; Principal Secretary Irrigation and Drainage; Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Development; Principal Secretary Local Government; Principal 3 Civil Writ Petition No.20158 of 2010 Secretary Home; Deputy Commissioner Kapurthala; representatives of the Improvement Trust and voluntary organizations. The objections spelt out in the writ petition and mentioned above, were considered and overruled, and the Improvement Trust was asked to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned departments. The Improvement Trust has further placed on record Annexure R5/1, whereby the Public Works Department (Bridges and Roads), Punjab on 11th March, 2011 has granted approval to the Improvement Trust to construct the approach road connecting the proposed Colony to Dosanjh Kalan road. They stated that when the technical bodies have already granted approval, the petitioner is not entitled to raise obstacles with regard to the development works of the Trust. It has been further canvassed that the Improvement Trust has also moved an application to the Irrigation Department, Punjab, for permission to construct bridge/road and the matter is being processed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Improvement Trust has canvassed before this Court that until all technical approvals are granted by the various authorities of the State, nothing in violation of requirement of law, rules and norms prescribed shall be executed or done. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that we cannot make ourselves party to the debate as to whether construction of the approach road to provide access to the residents of the proposed Colony is justifiable or not, as the Courts have held a view that the development of a housing colony, its needs and location are prerogatives of those who are assigned this duty by various statutes. We also hold a view that management of traffic, its flow and avoidance of accidents require necessary specialization and expertise and it should be left to those who are entrusted with this job. Till there is no violation of any legal obligation, statutory requirements and the mandatory norms prescribed, the Court will always be hesitant to examine the feasibility and 4 Civil Writ Petition No.20158 of 2010 viability of any such project. All arguments raised by the petitioner are liable to be ignored on the touchstone of the following observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in ‘Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana’ 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 814: “44. In so far as the challenge made on the project being technically feasible or not, we are of the opinion that the Court neither has the expertise nor the technical knowhow to evaluate the contentions raised by the petitioners on this aspect of the matter. It has repeatedly been held by the Apex Court that the Courts cannot substitute their opinion where the decision making involves technical aspects of the matter. 45. In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others, 2002(2) SCT 12 : (2002)2 SCC 333, their Lordships held as follows :- "In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself." Similarly, in Federation of Railway Officers Association and others v. Union of India, (2003)4 SCC 289, it was observed as under :- "Judicial review of a policy evolved by the Government is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere in such matters." 5 Civil Writ Petition No.20158 of 2010 In the present case, all functionaries of the State have not only examined and evaluated the proposal but have also rejected the arguments advanced in the present petition, which were raised before them by two voluntary organizations. This is sufficient for us not to venture to examine the concerns of the petitioner that the proposed road shall be accident prone and therefore, we should stop its construction. Grant of no objection of Public Works Department (Bridges and Roads) is enough for us to record our satisfaction that officials having necessary expertise and specialization were alive to the controversy raised and as per their judgment, objections raised warranted no attention. Thus, no interference is called for and the present writ petition is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. [RANJAN GOGOI] CHIEF JUSTICE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 30, 2011 rps 6