BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Bajrang Bahadur Singh, seeks the following reliefs:-

(2.) According to the petitioner, in the year 1971 he was posted as Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, U.P., in the district of Varanasi. A pontoon bridge is erected on the river Ganga every year by the Public Works Department. The said bridge consists of 127 pontoons and it connects Ram Nagar with the city of Varanasi. The Minister, Public Works Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, had issued some instructions that all the pontoon bridges in the State of U.P. be made ready and opened for traffic on 31.10.2000 otherwise the adverse entry will be made against the Executive Engineer concerned. According to the petitioner, Varanasi is a city of cultural heritage. Every year, Dev Deepawali programme which is an important cultural programme, is celebrated in the first/second week of November on the banks of river Ganges. For holding this cultural programme, a floating platform is erected on river Ganges for which about 14-15 pontoons are required. The said festival is attended by the high dignitaries of the State and artists of international repute participate in the said programme. According to the petitioner, an application dated 13.9.2001 was made by the President, Ma Ganga Sewa Samiti, before the District Magistrate, Varanasi who on the same day directed the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Provincial Division to extend all possible cooperation like previous years. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, vide order dated 16.10.2001 directed the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to make available 8 pontoons alongwith decking for the purpose of Dev Deepawali programme to be organised on 11.11.2000 at Dashashwamedh Ghat. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the petitioner who was posted as the Executive Engineer in Public Works Department, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, provided the requisite number of pontoons for Dev Deepawali programme. It is the case of the petitioner that a major portion of Ram Nagar pontoon bridge was constructed by 25.10.2000 but as some of the pontoons had been provided to the district administration for Dev Deepawali programme, the pontoon bridge could not be completed within the deadline set by the Minister, i.e., 31.10.2000. After the Dev Deepawali programme came to an end on 11.11.2000, the pontoon bridge was got completed on 14.11.2000 and it was opened for traffic on 15.11.2000. As the Ram Nagar pontoon bridge could not be ready and opened for traffic by 31.10.2000, the Minister got enraged and directed for awarding special adverse entry to the petitioner. When he came to know about the special adverse entry having been awarded, he approached the District Magistrate, Varanasi who immediately wrote a letter on 12.11.2000 to the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Lucknow, explaining the entire situation and disclosing the reason for the delay in completion of the pontoon bridge. The District Magistrate has specifically stated that 14 pontoons were used in the construction of floating platform for holding the Dev Deepawali programme as a result of which the pontoon bridge could not be completed by 31.10.2000 and there was no laxity on the part of the petitioner. The State Government, however, gave a special adverse entry on 14.11.2000 on the ground that the petitioner did not make available the pontoon bridge for traffic by 31.10.2000. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner made a representation to the State Government on 11-12.12.2000 explaining therein the entire facts and circumstances and requesting for the expunction of the special adverse entry. Comments were called for from the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Varanasi who, vide letter dated 18.4.2001, sent his detailed comments to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, U.P., Lucknow. In his comments sent by the Chief Engineer, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was not guilty of any negligence or slackness in completing the pontoon bridge. The delay occurred on account of the requisition sent by the district authorities, namely, the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, for making available sufficient number of pontoons for erection of a floating platform for Dev Deepawali programme and after the festival was over when 14 pontoons were returned back, the same was used and within two days the pontoon bridge was opened for traffic. If the pontoon would not have been requisitioned by the district administration, the pontoon bridge would have been ready by 28.10.2000 and the petitioner is not liable to be blamed for the delay. The State Government, vide order dated 12.10.2001, however, rejected the petitioner's representation. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he personally met the Minister concerned and apprised him about every thing whereupon he was asked to make a fresh representation, which was made by him on 19.12.2001. When the representation was not being disposed of, the petitioner was left with no other alternative but to approach this Court by filing the present petition.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by Shailendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Construction Division, Varanasi, on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, it has been stated that as the petitioner had not got the pontoon bridge completed by 31.10.2000, special adverse entry had rightly been awarded and if there was any difficulty in getting the pontoon bridge completed by the due date, the petitioner ought to have brought the difficulty to the knowledge of the superior authority so that remedial action could have been taken. However, the letter written by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, has not been denied. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the averments made in the writ petition have been reiterated to be correct.