TANIANG KIPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by one Shri Taniang Kipa claiming to be the resident of Karsingsa village District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court relating to PIL (Public Interest Litigation) against the State and its authorities in relation to the subject matter of the writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, firstly: the decision having rightly been taken by the State in the first instance to set up an Airport at a place ''Karsingsa/Banderdewa '', there was neither any need nor an occasion for shifting the Airport site to other place at ''Hollongi '' thereby changing the earlier decision, secondly: the decision to shift is irrational, arbitrary and not conceived in the public interest, thirdly: it is taken to extend benefit to persons in power so that they are able to get some kind of monetary consideration, fourthly: construction of Airport at new site would cause more burden in terms of investment as compared to its original cost on the earlier site selected and hence it is bad. These were essentially the grounds on which the decision to shift the site for construction of the Airport from original site is assailed in this PIL. On notice being issued to the respondents, i.e Union of India, the Civil Aviation Ministry, its authorities and the State authorities, returns are filed denying therein all the allegations made in the writ petition being totally baseless and without any material. The respondents have given reasons in support of their decision to shift the site from ''Karsingsa/Banderdewa '' to ''Hollongi ''. It is inter alia averred that the decision to shift the Airport site was taken after intense deliberation inter se all agencies involved in the decision making process and was therefore conceived in the best public interest and the stakeholders. It was, according to the respondents, based on full application of mind by all the competent authorities including experts, who, after examining all the pros and cons, approved the alternative site.

(3.) HOWEVER , by order dated 14.11.2013, the Court modified its earlier order dated 30.08.2013 and re -constituted the Committee 's constitution as under: