BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-18
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 19,2012

BAHADUR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH, C.J. - (1.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the State, which is accepted on record. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that there has been a slight deviation at 4 kilometer and, there is no deviation at 5 kilometer. It is the contention in the writ petition that, there has been a large deviation at 5 kilometer and, by reason thereof village Birthlekh has been denied of the benefit of the said road under construction. In the counter affidavit it has been stated by the State that according to the Government norms, if a village is situate within 1.5 kilometer from a moterable road, it is considered that the village has access through that moterable road. It has further been stated that the said village Birthlekh is situate about 500 meters from the proposed road and, accordingly, according to Government norms, it must be deemed that the moterable road under construction is available to the said village.
(2.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, in that the said assertions of the State have been denied in toto. Accordingly, we feel that a Commission must be sent for the purpose of gathering the facts pertaining to actual deviation at 5 kilometer and the distance of the village from the road under construction, and also whether, any attempt has been made to realign the road at 5 kilometer to deprive access to the said village Birthlekh. We have been told by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the residents of village Birthlekh are poor and accordingly are unable to bear huge cost of sending a Commission. We have also been told by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Lalit Tiwari and Mr. D. D. Bhatt have agreed to discharge the onerous obligation of discharging the responsibilities indicated above, as Commission, without any charge. Both of them are members of the Advocates Association of this High Court. The learned counsel for the State has no objection, if any, or both of them are appointed as such Commission. We accordingly, appoint both the said Advocates as Commissioners with a request to them to visit the place and to carry out the above task and thereupon to file a report before us. It is made clear that the petitioner shall bear the cost of the learned Advocates visiting the locale as well as the cost of the Advocates to return from the locale. Let the report of the Commission be filed as soon as possible, but not later than 26th April, 2012, when the matter shall be listed in the list as item no. 1. Until then, we request the State to not carry out the construction of the road in and around 5 kilometer. The Commissioners shall proceed to the locale upon notice to the learned counsel for the State, namely Mr. Vinay Kumar. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner and also to the learned counsel for the State.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.