IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 57 of 2009 Birbal & others .………….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …..……Respondents. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The respondents sanctioned the Tarikhet – Pipli – Majoorkhan motor road measuring 13 kilometers. The aforesaid motor road does not connect the three villages Sajgori, Pandhar and Chaukiya. Through the present writ petition filed in public interest, the petitioners claim connectivity of their villages Sajgori, Pandhar and Chaukiya with the aforestated motor road. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the proposed alignment suggested by the petitioners is accepted far less trees will have to be cut as would be necessary if the present sanctioned road is built. Based on the aforesaid assertion at the hands of the petitioners notice was issued to the respondents, in response to which a joint counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4. The proposal made by the petitioners is sought to be repudiated by asserting, firstly, that the villages with which the proposed alignment is sought are located at a higher altitude making the project impermissible, and secondly, that the State Government has sanctioned another road Tarikhet – Pipli – Soladar – Chamarkhan measuring 6 kilometers, 2 which would provide the required connectivity, as has been sought through this petition. The Annexure CA-1 and CA-2 appended to the counter affidavit reveal that the villages Chaukiya and Pandhar would virtually fall on the 6 kilometer motor road, whereas, there is hardly any necessity to connect village Sajgori as the said village is at a mere distance of 150 meters from the 13 kilometer motor road. On the issue of trees liable to be affected by the construction of the 13 kilometer motor road, it has been asserted in paragraph 13 of the joint counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, that the State Government has received the appropriate sanction from the various department for cutting 878 trees, which would fall within the path of 13 kilometer road. As such, it is sought to be asserted at the hands of the respondents that the proposal suggested by the petitioners is not only impractical, but also needless, in the facts and circumstances of this case. None of the assertions made in the joint counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 (as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraph) has been repudiated at the hands of the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners. Thus viewed, it clearly emerges that village Chaukiya and Pandhar would fall on the 6 kilometer road referred to above, and would be thus connected to the 13 kilometer road presently under construction. Insofar as village Sajgori is concerned, the same is at a mere distance of 150 meters from the 13 kilometer road, and as such, we are satisfied that the same does not need any further connectivity with the 13 kilometer road. 3 Since the State Government has already received the approval of the various departments for cutting the affected trees which would fall in the path of the construction of the 13 kilometer motor road, the objection raised by the petitioners on the issue of cutting of trees is also, in our view, not a valid justification for seeking realignment of the 13 kilometer motor road. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 15.2.2010 Avneet