Changal Narotham Reddy vs State Of Telangana

The petitioners before this Court have filed the present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation stating that they are residents of Shankarpally Village of Ranga Reddy District and are interested in public safety and convenience, particularly safety and convenience of road users.

The petitioners’ contention is that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are carrying out the work of laying of BT road in the name and style “Improvements to Gandipet-Shankarpally Road from KM 0/0 to 23/050 in Ranga Reddy District” at an estimated cost of Rs.70.50 crores. The respondent No.6 is the contractor, in whose favour the work has been awarded and an agreement was also executed on 30.09.2015. The petitioners have stated that the respondent No.6, who is the contractor, in connivance with the local authorities is doing the work of laying road as per his own whims and fancies without uniformity in laying the road. The petitioners have given certain examples to bolster their contentions and it has been stated that at certain points on either side of the road, there is no construction of 7 feet width side bund and at certain points the road is laid with a width of 90 feet and at certain chosen places, it is laid as 60 feet, 70 feet and 80 feet. It has been stated that there is no construction of side drains on either side of the road and at some places, the road is being laid at the height of 4 feet on the existing road. The petitioners further stated that the dividers have not been placed at appropriate places and people will face difficulty to visit burial grounds, godowns, agricultural market yard and the respondent No.6 has not followed the guidelines laid down by the Indian Road Congress. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in considering the representation dated 10.12.2020 and 23.12.2020 respectively submitted by the petitioners while the action of the 6th respondent without following the uniformity in laying the road of 1.5 kilometers approximately in between Patancheruvu Chowrasta Shankarpally to Indra Reddy Statue Circle, Shankarpally, without construction of the road is being laid at height of 4 feet on the existing road, whereas some of the houses and shops are having their flooring on the ground floor below 4 feet approximately height of on-going road being laid by the 6th respondent, that too without equally laying B.T. Road of 36 feet width from the divider with width of 4 feet on either side of the road, without constructing 7 feet side bund on either side of the road, without earmarking vehicle parking areas, without approximately laying the road at Lalitha Hospital, Dr. B.Gangadhar Hospital, RTC Bus Station, Bharat Petrol Bunk and beside Agriculture Market Yard, without appropriately providing at the divider for U-turn at Agricultural Market Yard and Godowns where situated, U-turn for facilitating road users to visit Hindu and Muslim burial grounds (Crematorium), U-turn at 2 function halls where situated, U-turn at Muslim Minority colonies where situated, without constructing 7 feet side bund on either side of the road, without earmarking vehicle parking areas and without maintaining uniformity throughout said road from Patancheruvu Chowrasta Shankarpally to Indra Reddy Statue Circle, Shankarpally Municipality of Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to take steps to ensure the laying of the above said road by considering the representations dated 10.12.2020 and 23.12.2020 respectively in the interest of justice and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

A detailed and an exhaustive counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4 on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 and it has been stated that the petitioners have raised all frivolous grounds in the writ petition. The Government has accorded administrative sanction for the work ‘Improvements to Gandipet-Shankarpally Road from Km 0/0 – 23/050 in Ranga Reddy District’ for an estimated amount of Rs.75.00 crores. The technical sanction was awarded on 12.08.2021 for widening of the road from double lane to four lane with central divider. The work has been entrusted to respondent No.6 – M/s.R.K.Infracorp Private Limited and the Roads and Buildings Department is the supervising authority of the road project. The work is being done as per the Indian Road Congress norms and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It has also been stated that the work has been completed in all respects as per the agreement.

The respondents have further stated that the petitioner No.1’s shops are located on the left side of Gandipet-Shankarpally road, i.e., near Rotary, where Indra Reddy statue is located. It has been further stated that while the work was going on, the petitioner No.1 made a request to shift the central line of the road to the right side making Indra Reddy statue as centre so that the shops will not be disturbed in future if any widening or acquisition is taken up. The petitioner No.1 has also obstructed the work and argued with the officers and workmen to shift the alignment to right side. The petitioner No.1, along with the other local people, has filed the present Public Interest Litigation with personal interest as the supervising authority, R&B Department and implementing agency, M/s. R.K. Infracorp Private Limited have not carried out the work as per the wishes of the petitioner No.1. The respondents have further stated that the road has been constructed and widening has been done as per the alignment and they cannot provide spaces by removing the dividers. Removal of dividers will result in large number of accidents and therefore, the dividers have been placed after a joint inspection with the traffic police department and the recommendations of the traffic police department have been implemented to minimise or avoid accidents. A prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

The petitioners have filed the Public Interest Litigation in the matter of improvements to Gandipet-Shankarpally road from double lane to four lane. The entire work has been executed and the counter filed by the respondent No.4 reveals that after the technical sanction was accorded in the matter, the work of widening of the road was carried out by the contractor, i.e., respondent No.6. It has been stated that four lane road is now in existence with central divider to cater to the city traffic as per the Profile Plan. The dividers have been placed on the basis of expert opinion of the traffic police department. The petitioners have claimed that median openings have not been provided at the Market Yard, Crematorium, Muslim Minority Colony and S.M.Function hall. The respondents have categorically stated that the agriculture market yard is just 150 meters away from Indra Reddy Chourasta where a Rotary has been provided which can be used to go to market yard. It is also stated that as per the Indian Road Congress manual, the interval between two successive median openings in built up areas cannot be less than 500 meters and the respondents have taken into account the safety aspects in the matter of providing openings on the road in question. The respondent No.4 in paragraph 7 has stated as under:-

“7. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner shops are located on left side of Gandipet-Shankarpally Road i.e., near Rotary where Indrareddy statue is located. During the progress of work, the 1st petitioner Sri Changal Narottam Reddy has requested to shift the centre line of the road to right side making Indrareddy statue as centre so that his shops will not be disturbed in future if any widening or acquisition is taken up. While carrying out the work, the 1st petitioner has obstructed the work and argued with the officers and workmen to shift the alignment to right side. The 1st petitioner has filed this PIL with personal interest as supervising authorities of R&B Department and implementing agency M/s.R.K.Infracorp Private Limited, i.e., 6th respondent have not carried out the work as per wishes of the 1st petitioner. It is apt to state herein that the above said stretch is widened equally on both sides of the existing alignment due to which the interest of the public is safeguarded.”

The aforesaid statement has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is having shop on left side of the road and he wanted the road to be shifted so that his shops will not be disturbed in future, if any further widening or acquisition takes place. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1 has stated before this Court that the petitioner No.1 does not have shops located on the left side of the road, however, his son is having shops. The fact remains that the statement of the respondents has not been denied by filing an affidavit by the petitioner No.1 and therefore, the present Public Interest Litigation is nothing but personal interest litigation and in the present public interest petition, the petitioner No.1 has gathered some other people of the locality and has filed the present Public Interest Litigation and it is evident that he is having personal interest in the matter. Resultantly, the present Public Interest Litigation not only deserves to be dismissed, but also deserves to be dismissed with costs.

In the light of the aforesaid, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to be paid by the petitioner No.1 within a period of thirty (30) days from today to the Prime Minister Covid-19 Relief Fund. It is made clear that in case the costs are not paid by the petitioners within thirty (30) days from today, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District shall recover the costs from the petitioner No.1 as arrears of land revenue and shall deposit the same with the Prime Minister Covid-19 Relief Fund under intimation to the Registrar General of this Court.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.