"iSS^ ;^' HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUI HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUF^SAR SINHA, J. Writ Petition No. 17SO of 2006. Raja Ram Tiwari S/o Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari, aged about 60 years, Occupation passengers coiiector for the Private buses at ius Stand, Bitaspur, resident of BiSaspur, Tahsil and District Biiaspur (CG). RESPONDENTi 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Deveiopment Department, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG) 2. The Collectof, Bilaspur, Tahsii and Dist'ict Bilaspur (CG) 3. Nagar Nigam Bilaspur, Through its Commissioner, Bilaspur, Tahsii and District Bilaspur (CG) 4. The Union of India, through Ministry of Railways, New Delhi (India) 5. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Rallvvay, Biiaspur WRiT UNDERARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiONOF INDiA, Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy,Deputy A.G. with Shri Akhl! Agrawal, Panei Lawyer, for the State/ respondents io.1 at 2. Shri A.S. techhawaha, counsel for respondent No.3. Q^RD^ •th (16tn September, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 2. Petitioner Raja Ram Tiwari has filed this writ petition styled as 'Pubiic Interest Litigation' for the fotlowing reliefs: "1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire plan of Bus Stand Square for kind perusal ofthis Hon'ble Court; 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent State authorities and the local administration i.e. respondents no. 2 and 3 to forthwith demolish the Platform which has been constructed over the Bus Stand Square within the circle of 1000 square feet land and the respondents be further restrained from establishing the idol of Shyama Prasad Mukharjee on the square of the bus stand and aiso restrained from the change of the name of the bus stand which is popularly known as Hanuman Madir Tempie Chouraha; 3. That thfe Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to dlrect the respondents no.2 and 3 to fuifiil their earlier promise for broadening the road which makes comfortabie for moving the crowd around the bus stand; 4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may atso be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition." .&'• SSK 1^-'. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that the Hanuman Temple was shifted from its existing site to the new site with a view to provide wider road, but the construction of the circte with statue has resulted in reduction of the width of the road. 4. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Nagar Nigam, Bilaspur; on the other hand contended that the width of the road has not been reduced at all and movement of the traffic at the said square has now become smoother. 5. Vtfhat should be the width of a particular road or dimension of a circte and where a staiue should be situated are not the matters to be decided by the Court. it is entirely for the expert bodies of the State Government and the Local Seif Government to take an appropriate decision in those matters. 6. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the parties and the photographs, maps and site pians available before us, we do not find any good ground warranting interference «sCourt. . 7. The writ petition fiied by the petitioner styied as 'Pubiic Interest Litigation', therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 8. Consequentiy, M.W.P.No.1324/2006 also stands dismi^ed. 9. Noorder asto costs. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge