IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18513 of 2009 ***** 1. SHAMBHU SHARAN S/O SRI LALDEO SINGH R/O VILL.- CHATAR, P.S.- KAKO IN THE DISTRICT OF JEHANABAD. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY (ENGINEERING) DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CIRCLE, GAYA, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DIVISION, UDERA ASTHAN IN THE DISTRICT OF JEHANABAD 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DIVISION, JEHANABAD. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For Respondents 2 to 5: Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, Additional Advocate General-IV Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General-IV ------------ 3. 14.01.2010. In this public interest litigation, the petitioner, a public spirited person, has prayed for quashment of order dated 17.10.2007 whereby the construction Uderasthan Barrage has been stopped. - 2 - 2. This Court on 4.1.2010 had passed the following order: - “The basic grievance, as is manifest from the pleadings in the writ petition and the documents brought on record, is that the construction of Udera Asthan Baraj at Falgu river has been stopped by the State Government after expending substantial sum of money. Though the pleadings are sketchy, yet we are inclined to be apprised by the State whether the construction work has been stopped on the basis of a policy or there has been stoppage of work as an interim measure. Be it noted, we are disposed to direct so as the order, which has been issued for stopping of work dates back to 17.10.2007. Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General – IV shall obtain instructions in the matter and, if necessary, shall file a reply. Put up on 14th January, 2010.” 3. Thereafter a counter affidavit has been filed contending, inter alia, that there is weir scheme at Uderasthan in the District of Jehanabad on Falgu river and, in the interest of local people and farmers, the State Government felt requirement of an effective irrigation scheme and decided to construct a barrage at Uderasthan. A consultant was appointed in the year 2006 to prepare a detailed project report for the said scheme. Based on the preliminary project report, it was decided to start the - 3 - construction work keeping in view the urgent requirement and public interest. For early commencement of the project mathematical model test was conducted and the construction work commenced. In the final project report submitted by the Agency there has been strong recommendation for a physical model test of the barrage. At this stage the local people raised objections over construction work. At that stage the State Government decided to stop the construction work and to look into the matter the Government has set-up a high level technical expert committee to look into the grievance as per the order contained in Memo no.1896 dated 2.11.2007. The committee has submitted the report on 10.12.2007 and recommended for physical model test before the construction, based on recommendations of the Agency and High Level Committee. The State Government has moved for physical model test to be conducted by C.W.P.R.S., Pune. The departmental representatives have been sent to Pune for said work. The C.W.P.R.S., Pune submitted its Physical Model Test report in November, 2009 to the Department and keeping in view the said report the Department by letter dated 4.12.2009 has ordered to start the - 4 - work after obtaining the recommendations and revised drawings by Central Design Organisation and presently the Central Design Organisation is checking the design and the drawings of the barrage and the work shall commence after the revised drawings and recommendations of the Central Design Organisation. 4. In view of the aforesaid assertions in the return, it is perceivable that the State Government has taken steps and had decided to commence the work, we are only inclined to direct that steps shall be taken with due promptitude. 5. With the aforesaid direction the writ application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)