'%) HiGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTiSGARH : BSLASPUR iJ'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! D.R. DESHMUKH, J. T PETfl .2154 OF 2006. E versus 1. 2. 3. JaS Jagdish Singh S/o. Sukhpa! Singh, 35 years, R/'o. Viiiage - Rewapar, Post - Kodabhat, Tehsil - Pamgarh, dist: Janjgir Champa - (C.G.) Union of India, Through - The Sscretary, Land & Road Transport Deptt. New Delhi. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Panchyat and Rura! DeveSopmenf Deptt. Manfraiaya Raipur- (C.G.) C.G. RuraS Road Development Agency, Through - Chjef ExecuSive Officer, Civil Lines Raspur - (C.G.) The Executive Ensineercum- Member Secretary Projeci Impiementation Unit Pradhan IViantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Dist: Janjgir Champa- (C.G.) !\4r.PrafuS! Bharat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Beriwai, ieamed Standing counse! for Union of Shri Prashant Mishra, iearned Addi. Advocate Generai with Shri Utkarsh Verma, iearned Dy. G.A. forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25tn Aprii, 20Q6) he foilowjng orai order of the Court was passed by Shri Jai Jagdish Singh, the petiSioner herein, has fiied this writ under Articie 228 of the Constitution of India claming to be a pro s• /i. bono pubiic character to espouse a cause of the public. !t is ststed that the Union of India had floated a scheme in the year 2002 popuiariy known as 'Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna'. Under the said scheme, a road from Rahood to Khokri was sanctionsd. Whiie executing the above work, respondenis 3 and 4 herein decided to !ay a new road from Rahood terminal going to viiiage Khokri. It is the contention of the petitioner that there exists W.B.M. Road which passes through a Nala and a cuivert has already bsen constructed iong back, anci the proposed construction of the road wouSd be a sheer waste at the cost of the Exchequer of the State, and the proposa! is not intended to sen/e any publto purpose or interest. !n a matter like this, it is for the public authorities to take a decjsion where Shs road shouid be laid, whether the proposat to iay a new road wouid ssrve societaS interest in general and road-users in particular after taking into account aii relsvant factors and cireumstances. Such decision of the aufhorities should nof be condemnsd as arbitrary or unreasonabfe unless mala isde on the psrt of the administrative agencies is shov/n. Atthough, it is vagueiy staSed that the action of the respondents 3 and 4 is ma!a fide, no factual matrix is laid in the pleadings of the petitioner to bring home even remoteiy the charge of mata fide. An indiwdual in the society couid not dictate the tsrm to the pubite authorities as to where a pubiic road shouid be iaid. It may be a matter of choice on the part of respondents 3 and 4 eiSfter to repair the existing road or to lay a new road. It is nobody's right to insist that respondents 3 and 4 shoulci not iay a new road and they shouid on!y repair the existing road which is jn a bad shape. Be that as it may, it is not within the domain of the Court to interfere in a matter !ike this inasmuch as thers is also an siement of poiicy which wouid guide th® ^ -.3. pubiic authorities when they took decision to iay new road. !t is seen from the records pteced before us that the petitioner has aiready made a representation to the Collector, Janjgir-Champa expressing his opposition to the proposai to iay a new road. It is for the concemed authorities under f'ne 'Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna' to appreclate the representation of the petitioner and iftheyfind any merit in the rapresentation, then, to take appropriate measure in accordance with !aw and in terms of the Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna. The writ petition is dismissed subiect i^ Sd/'- Chief Justlce Sdf- DilipRaosaheb Deshmukh .ludge