R.K. JOYSANA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Romenkumar, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mr. N.Kumarjit Singh, learned Advocate General for the State respondents.

(2.) The prayers No.1,2, 3 and 5 in the present PIL are as follows:-

(3.) The PIL has been filed highlighting the bad condition of the National Highways Nos.37 and 2 with the prayer to direct that it should be properly maintained and also security surveillance should be invoked to ensure that there is free flow of traffic on these highways, which are treated as lifelines of Manipur. As a consequent to the relief of laying proper highway and maintenance, it is pleaded that so far in the construction activities relating to National Highway Nos.37 and 2, there has been large scale misappropriation of funds and therefore, the quality of works has suffered. The third prayer appears to be to ensure that the highways are properly maintained for movement of essential commodities for the people of Manipur. The last prayer is for strengthening the existing bailey bridges, 3 in numbers across Irang river to a particular agency of Kolkata. We hasten to state that no such specific direction can be given to the National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) to give the work to a particular person because that is completely in the domain of the Executing agency of the Union or the State Government to decide who will be the most competent person to execute the work. In this regard, it is for the State and Union authorities to decide how to strengthen the existing bailey suspension bridges in an appropriate manner.