BERONIKA SYIEMLIEH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court with a prayer for directions to stop the respondent authorities from engaging in the construction and widening of the PWD approach road connecting Umshyrpi Bridge to Rilbong, Shillong, on the ground that on the approach road, two schools are situated and construction of a regular motorable road in such an area will pose a threat to the safety of the residents of the area and to the students of these two schools.

(2.) Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Decruse, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the stakeholders and the residents of the area have objected to the construction of the approach road, and have voiced their concerns as to the adverse impact it would have on the residents and others, the State respondents are continuing with the construction. He further submits that though no private land is being parted with in the construction of the road, the same which would be of a maximum width of only 5.2 metres, would be extremely narrow and would pose a serious danger to the school children and residents, if vehicles ply on the same. He has also submitted that in the construction of the road, the respondents had not conducted a social impact assessment, as to the feasibility of the widening of the road to make it motorable. As such, he prays that the proposed road construction be suspended and stopped, in view of the concerns as expressed by the residents.

(3.) Mrs. T. Yangi. B, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA for the State respondents No. 1-5 has submitted that the construction is for the benefit of all and in public interest, as by the widening of the path, a motorable road would be created easing the congestion in the area. She further submits that this matter had already been agitated before this Court by way of WP(C) No. 102 of 2022, by the same petitioners, wherein this Court by order dtd. 1/4/2022, taking cognizance of the issue, and of a joint site inspection, which had been conducted on 27/2/2021, had closed the matter. She therefore submits that the matter having been decided in the earlier writ petition, the instant writ petition on the same issue cannot be entertained.