MRS. KIRAN PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in O.J.C. No. 8090 of 1996 are residents of Gandamunda, Bhubaneswar and they have filed this writ application as Public Interest Litigation for the following reliefs:

(2.) It is evident from the above that all the writ applications relate to inconvenience that may be caused to the local residents in the event the proposal for expanding domestic Airport at Bhubaneswar to be used as an International Airport is implemented. In view of the above, all the cases were heard together. The first writ application in this regard is O.J.C. No. 8090 of 1996 in which counter-affidavit, additional affidavits, rejoinders, etc. have been filed and therefore the Court decided to take up the said writ application for consideration first.

(3.) Shri Jagannath Patnaik, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ application submitted that the petitioners have no objection if any kind of development work is taken up by the State Government and it was specifically submitted by Sri Patnaik that the petitioners do not at all object to construction of an International Airport at Bhubaneswar. But before making any such construction, the State Government is duty bound to look into the convenience of the residents of the locality and make alternate arrangement by providing wide roads. According to Sri Patnaik International Airport can be constructed at a place beyond the local limits of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, but same may involve a lot of expenditure which the State Government may not be in a position to bear. Therefore, the local residents who have filed this writ application have no objection for expansion of the domestic Airport for the aforesaid purpose provided the State Government provides an alternate road having sufficient width to accommodate heavy traffic for the local residents. Referring to the topography of the area as well as the report of the Advocates-Commission and other documents available on record it was contended by Sri Patnaik that initially the road proposed to be used as an alternate road was found to be narrow and keeping in view heavy traffic in the locality the said road was found to be inconvenient and the matter was brought to the notice of the Court. The Court directed an Advocates-Commission to visit the place and submit a report and the Advocates-Commission submitted a report supporting the case of the petitioners that the alternate road proposed by the State Government was too narrow to accommodate heavy flow of vehicular traffic. The State Government also realizing the aforesaid fact proposed an alternate road to be constructed for convenience of the local residents and the petitioners have no objection if that alternate road is constructed first before any expansion work is taken up.