IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7230 of 2010 Reserved on :20th June, 2011 Date of Decision: 28th June, 2011 Madan Lal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr.Y.P.Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4. Sanjay Karol, J. Essentially it is the petitioner’s grievance that work with respect to Hanuman Mandir – Tarari road leading to villages falling within Gram Panchayat Jalel, Tehsil and District Shimla is pending construction since long in spite of administrative approvals/ sanctions accorded by the State. 2. Having perused the affidavits filed by the respondents, including private respondent No.5 – Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Mandir Thakurdwara Mahavir Hanuman Jamati, it is apparent that major portion of the road already stands constructed and the dispute primarily pertain to the road which is required to be partially constructed over the land belonging to private respondent No.5. There is no dispute that the land is actually owned by the said respondent. Noticeably there has been past litigation between private respondent No.5 and the villagers of the area with respect to said road. Even though at some stage State had proposed to construct the road partly through the land belonging to private respondent No.5 and for which purpose administrative approval was also granted vide letter dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) and some budgetary provision made, but however, the fact of the matter is that private land was not acquired by the State and road could not be completed due to pending litigation between the parties. 3. Pertinently, the Government has now decided to develop the very same land belonging to private respondent No.5, for promoting tourism. Under the aegis of the Central Government, the State Government has decided to develop the area from tourism point of view and a foundation stone for establishment of a park and beautification of the area under the Scheme “Har Gaon Ki Kahani” stands laid by the Hon’ble 3 Minister, Tourism, Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India on 31.5.2010. 4. While dealing with almost similar situation, the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Umed Ram Sharma and others, (1986) 2 SCC 68, held as under:- “11. It appears to us that in the facts of this case, the controversy lies within a short compass. It is well settled that the persons who have applied to the High Court by the letter are persons affected by the absence of usable road because they are poor Harijan residents of the area, their access by communication, indeed to life outside is obstructed and/or prevented by the absence of road. The entire State of Himachal Pradesh is in hills and without workable roads, no communication is possible. Every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution and in the facts of this case read in conjunction with Article 19 (1)(d) of the Constitution and in the background of Article 38(2) of the Constitution every person has right under Article 19(1)(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India and he has also the right under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embraces not only physical existence of life but the quality of life and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself. These propositions are well settled. We accept the proposition that there should be road 4 for communication in reasonable conditions in view of our constitutional imperatives and denial of that right would be denial of the life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. To the residents of the hilly areas as far as feasible and possible society has constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication.” 5. The road has to be completed, more so for the reason that the administrative approval is already there. None of the appearing parties have any objection to the same. The road would pass through several villages and cater to the people who belong to socially and economically lower strata of Society. Major population in these villages belong to Scheduled Castes category. In this regard our attention has been invited to the earlier proceedings pending before this Court. Pursuant to the directions dated 26.10.2004 passed by this Court in CMPMO No.309 of 2004, titled as mandir Thakurdwara Mahavir Hanuman Samiti vs. Sh. Ganga Dutt and others, a team comprising of S.D.M. (R), Executive Engineer, Shimla Division No.1, HPPWD and the learned counsel for the parties, had visited the spot and suggested an alternate site through which the road could be constructed after re-alignment. In this regard, the matter was brought to the notice of the authorities 5 in terms of letter dated 25.11.2004, which reads as under:- “Subject: CMP No. 309/04 – titled as Mandir Thakurdwara Mahavir Hanuman Samiti V/s Sh.Ganga Dutt & others. Reference: Your office dated No.SML-SDM(R) Reader-Misc-2004-1957-58 dated 9.11.2004. In this connection, it is intimated that as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court on dated 26.10.2004, a team comprising SDM (R), undersigned and advocates of both the parties visited the spot on 16.11.2004. The best possible alignment was explained to all those present there. The length of road will be 315 mtrs. which will be 5/7 mtrs. wide and will have a grade 1 in 15 from 0/0 to 0/90 and 1 in 13.23 from 0/90 to 0/315. The detailed survey has been carried out and detailed estimate has been prepared. The cost of this work comes out to be Rs.5.60 lacs. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be apprised accordingly. Detailed estimate alongwith revenue papers is also enclosed. Encls: As above. Executive Engineer, Shimla Division No.I, HP PWD, Shimla-3.” 6. Even today respondent No.5 has no objection if this proposal is implemented. This is evident from its affidavit filed in these proceedings. 7. In view of the said background, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 4 to consider completing 6 construction of the road on the lines of letter dated 25.11.2004 after according administrative approval for realignment of the road. Needful be done within a period of six months from today since the length of the road now involved is not much. In this regard, private respondent No.5 has already consented for the same. 8. A direction is also issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to also take up the matter with the appropriate authorities for ensuring that bus facility is made available to the residents of the villages of Gram Panchayat, Jalel at the earliest after construction of the road. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice June 28, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.