KRISHNAVENI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents 1 to 4 in connection with the four laning of Salem Coimbatore Section of NH-47 from K.M. 1.60 to K.M. 53.00 (package 1) on Annuity Basis titled proposed inter-change at Kondalampatti and to quash the altered plan in Job No. C-622 (drawing No. DRG No. SCPLB/C-622/P1/RH/JN-02/REV) made therein and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 4 to adhere to the original scheme finalised and approved for the said work.

(2.) MR. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted as follows: The petitioners 1 to 5 are co-owners of the lands to an extent of (i) 18454 sq.ft., in Survey No. 96/2A, Kandampatti/Pallapatti Village, Salem West (ii) 11546 sq.ft., in Survey No. 39/1A, Annadhanapatti Village, Salem East and (iii) 5022 sq.ft., in Survey No. 39/1A, Annadhanapatti Village, Salem East, measuring in all 35,022 sq.ft., which are located abutting NH-47 of Salem. The petitioners 1 to 5 have leased out the above said item Nos. (i) and (ii) of the properties to the 5th respondent/corporation under a registered lease deed dated 10.3.2004 for the purpose erecting petrol filling stations for a period of 30 years. The 6th petitioner was a dealer/licensee of the 5th respondent corporation, who has taken on lease the item No. (iii) mentioned above under a registered lease deed dated 20.8.2004 to construct a motel as required by the 5th respondent/corporation. The 5th respondent/corporation has also applied through the fourth respondent for issuance of No Objection Certificate for laying approach road for access to the retail outlet exactly at kilometer 203.727 to kilometer 203.776 in the Bangalore-Salem-Madurai Section of NH-7. Under proceedings dated 8.3.2004, the fourth respondent recommended to the third respondent to grant No Objection Certificate and the proposal forwarded by the fourth respondent was returned by the third respondent by his proceedings dated 30.6.2004 pointing out certain technical error in the proposal, hence, the 5th respondent re-submitted the proposal and thereafter, the proposal for issuance of No Objection Certificate for laying the approach road was forwarded by the fourth respondent on 17.8.2004. The fourth respondent again re-commended for issuance of No Objection Certificate. The fourth respondent, by his proceedings dated 10.3.2005 addressed to the 5th respondent/corporation has stated that the proposal for laying approach road could not be considered by the second respondent as the same is deficient on a few technical counts and as the proposal interferes with the four laning of NH-47, location of the outlet needs to be reviewed. Non-consideration of the application for No Objection Certificate for forming of access road on the ground that the same would interfere with the four laning of NH-47 is wholly unjustified since four laning has already been finalised by the respondents 1 to 4 and the proposed access road no way interferes with the four laning so finalised, which is evident from the proceedings of the District Magistrate-cum-District Revenue Officer dated 15.4.2004. The proposal for connecting NH-47 and NH-7 has already been finalised and in the draft plan, the ramp road connecting NH-47 and NH-7 was to be constructed behind the petroleum retail outlet of the 5th respondent corporation operated by the 6th petitioner. Much later, after the proposal for construction of the access road for the petroleum outlet had been recommended by the fourth respondent, a new plan has come to be prepared at the instance of certain vested interests namely 6th and 7th respondents. Under the altered plan, the proposed ramp road is to pass through the front side of the retail outlet facing NH-7 instead of at the rear. There is no need or justification for alteration of the original draft plan and in fact none is disclosed. The respondents 6 and 7 are politically well connected and at their bidding, the duly approved and finalised plan has been altered. The draft plan has been altered hurriedly which is evident from the fact that though the original plan was finalised after conducting necessary soil testing, water table testing and other required formalities, the alteration has now been proposed even without undertaking any of these tests. The procedure adopted is wholly arbitrary and whimsical and the respondents 1 to 4 ought not to be allowed to abdicate their duties and responsibilities with a view to please any vested interests, more so, when substantial public funds are to be invested in the project. The petitioners are seriously prejudiced by the second plan to re-locate the ramp between the national highway and the petroleum outlet. The averment that the petition is not maintainable as no notice under Section 3-A of National Highways Act, 1956 has been issued is unsustainable since the respondents 1 to 4 have altered the plan and are proceeding with the execution of the work and a feeble attempt is made to justify the alteration, which is vitiated by mala fide and colourable exercise of power only to favour the respondents 6 and 7. When colourable exercise of power is under challenge in the present writ petition and the proposal for 3-A notification has been finalised, certainly the writ petition is maintainable. The averment that considering technical feasibility, economic viability, social and environmental issues, the consultants have proposed the alternative arrangement by shifting the location slightly towards South considering the techno-economic, social and environmental consideration avoiding junctions with existing roads and hillocks posing gradient problems, huge costs towards rock cutting, settlements of economically weaker Sections and the greenery of the hillock are false. The business house of the 6th respondent in the concerned locality is Cauvery Stone Impact Private Limited, which name is also displayed in the factory, but the respondents 1 to 4 referred it as Gem Granite in the alternative plan. Erection of the pillars on the rock will be advantageous and would cost much less than digging the earth for laying foundation with concrete pillars. The averment that alteration is made to protect the economically weaker Section is far from truth. The so-called economically weaker Sections are encroachers of poromboke lands, who have put up pucca construction with RCC tiled roofs, which is disclosed in the plan itself. Poromboke lands are ironically left out solely with a view to serve the vested interests. The petroleum pump/ HSD pump of the 6th petitioner has been commenced after complying with all the formalities and prayed for quashing of the impugned order.

(3.) MR. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted as follows: