LOK HITRAKSHAK SAMITI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have moved this Court challenging the decision of the respondents to construct the fourlane toll road from Baroda to Halol and for setting aside the said project. They have sought an order for restraining the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from executing, implementing or taking any action in pursuance of the decision to construct this four-lane road. They have also sought for an order restraining these respondents from taking possession of the land acquired for the purpose of the said project. They have sought a further direction on them to approach the Central Government i.e. the respondent No.4, for environmental clearance and not to carry on or continue any construction in connection with the project, unless and until such clearance is obtained. A direction is sought on the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to hold a public hearing inviting the people affected, and that the construction work should be stopped until that is done.

(2.) When this application came up for admission hearing on 30/08/1999, the Highway Authority was added as party respondent No.5 and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners made it clear at the out-set that though there was a prayer in the petition challenging the four-lane road project, the petitioners do not press for that challenge, but they press for their contention that the provisions of the Notification dated 27.1.1994, which is at Annexure "D" to the petition, have not been followed, though they were applicable. Notice was accordingly issued on the respondents on that point, and the matter has been argued in context of the said Notification dated 27.1.1994, on the question whether environmental clearance was required or not for the said project.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is an unregistered organisation representing the people from various villages affected by the proposed four-lane road, which is to be constructed on the existing State Highway No.87, by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, to be known as "Baroda Highway Toll Road". It is stated that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are the villagers affected by the project. According to the petitioners, the construction of four-lane road will cause extensive damage to the environment, the purity of air, the survival of the trees and would cause noise pollution. According to them, the Notification dated 27.1.1994 was directly applicable in respect of the said project and that the project cannot proceed without the environmental clearance from the Central Government. The respondent No.3 - company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was formed with an objective to contract with the Gujarat State Government and/or its departments etc. for the project. According to the petitioners, at present there is already an existing State Highway No.87, known as Vadodara-Halol-Godhra Highway and its witdth is 6.5 mtrs with shoulders of 1.5 mtrs. on either side. It is stated that the proposed Highway will be 20 meters wide with a divider and on both the sides of the road, there will be service roads of 3.5 mtrs. each. The new road known as four-lane Toll road will be constructed by elevating the existing two-lane road and by adding elevated lanes on both the sides alongwith the service roads. It is further stated that the people of the area adjoining the existing State Highway No.87 and those using it have never been taken into confidence nor allowed to participate in any decision making process before putting up any four-lane road project. The existing State Highway No.87 is about 100 K.Ms long, while the proposed project will cover about 32 K.Ms i.e. about one third of the existing Highway. The total cost of the project is estimated at Rs. 178 crores and according to the petitioners, the project design would involve radical alteration of the existing two-lane road, which cannot be termed as a mere widening of the existing road. It is contended that the new road will, from every aspect, be different from the existing State Highway. The project would involve destruction of about 966 trees even according to the project authorities, though actually it may be much more than that. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has entered into a contract with the second respondent, due to lack of adequate public resources and in furtherance of the policy of liberalisation and privatisation and for the purpose of execution, the contract has in turn been given as regards the said project to the respondent No.3. It is contended that in the ultimate analysis money will come indirectly from the citizens.