- (1.) WE have heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary and Sri Kapil Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners who are two in number and Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for all the respondents. Affidavits have been exchange between the parties.
(2.) THE matter has been heard at quite some length, however, when learned Additional Advocate General was arguing the matter we find that the main thrust of the argument was that this Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable by the two petitioners who claim to be advocates practicing in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow. Her submission was that the locus of the petitioner in light of the various judgements of the Supreme Court has not been spelled out in this writ petition and therefore the petition be dismissed on that score.
(3.) WE find from the record that the dispute with respect of the construction of a bridge over Sharda canal near Azad Nagar, Lucknow known as Pakari Ka Pul has engaged the attention of this Court in an earlier Public Interest Litigation being Misc. Bench No. 5360 of 2008 (Sangam Lal Pandey (P.I.L.) (Civil) Vs. State of U.P. and 9 others). The P.I.L. was finally decided on 02.12.2013 by a Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. and Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.). In the said judgement of this Court it was observed that since the link road has now been created the matter has been set at rest. The recitation in the judgement was that a grievance was raised, a Committee was constituted, the Committee recognized the hardship of the residents, it advised a link road, which has now been put in place. The judgement dated 02.12.2013 itself is quoted hereunder: - "In these proceedings, which have been filed in public interest, the petitioner has sought a mandamus, commanding the State and its agencies to restore and re -construct a bridge, which was known as 'Pakri Pul' situated on Sharda Canal near Azad Nagar, Lucknow and not to block the high speed road (described as VIP Road) which connects the Amausi Airport by constructing a divider. By an order dated 17.06.2008, the Division Bench while directing the respondents to file a counter, also directed the respondents to consider the feasibility to provide an alternative way to ease the problems faced by the residents of the locality. In pursuance of the direction, a counter has been filed on behalf of the State, in which it has been set out that a Committee consisting of (1) The Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority; (2) The Chief Engineer, Nagar Nigam; (3) The Joint Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority; (4) The Joint Director, Land and Development; (5) The Town Planner, LDA and (6) The Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Lucknow was constituted, which carried out an extensive study and a survey on the spot and submitted its report. In view of the recommendation of the Committee, it has been submitted that a four lane alternate route parallel to the VIP Road towards south of the Sharda Canal running almost 2.8 Kms long and 24m wide was directed to be constructed so that the residents of the area could be connected to the VIP Road from Bangla Bazar upto Kanpur Road without any inconvenience. Accordingly, it has been stated that an alternate route has now been laid down in four lanes. The petitioner has a serious grievance about the demolition of 'Pakri Pul', which was in existence since 1923 -24. His grievance is that as a result of construction of the road approaching Amausi Airport leading to the construction of a divider, hardship is being faced by the residents of the locality. At the outset, it is necessary to emphasize that Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction in public interest, must have due regard to the parameters set out in judicial decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Public interest litigation may involve a relaxation of the ordinary rules as to standing. But, it is necessary to emphasize that the jurisdiction in public interest cannot be exercised in an uncharted territory and in this regard the well settled principles for the exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution have to be borne in mind. There are certain decisions which are best left to the planing authorities in the context of urban planning and unless, in a given case, the Court is satisfied that a decision, which has been taken is ultra vires in the sense of being contrary to the governing legislation or is in violation of constitutional requirements under Article 14 of the Constitution, the court would not interfere. We are emphatically of the view that a decision of how and in what manner a road should be constructed, whether an existing road should be recast, are matters to be considered by the expert body and not by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction in a PIL. In this very matter, since the Division Bench appreciated the grievance of the residents an interim direction was issued, and the respondents were directed to consider the grievance. A Committee was constituted. The Committee having recognized the hardship of the residents, advised a link road, which has now been put in place. Though the road, which has resulted in the filing of the petition, has been described as a VIP Road, it has been clarified on behalf of the State that this road is not exclusively reserved for a particular class of citizens, but for all citizens including those intending to have access to the Amausi Airport and beyond. In that view of the matter, since the grievance of the residents was attended to and a link road has now been created, we are of the view that the matter must be set at rest. The exercise of jurisdiction in public interest and further proceeding with the present case would not be proper. Hence, with these observations, we dispose of the writ petition." In this writ petition, the petitioners who have come in a P.I.L. have prayed for the following relief: - "I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to not to construct the bridge over the Sharda Canal at the place erstwhile 'Pakri Ka Pul' was situated.? II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the opposite parties from altering in any manner the existing constructions adjoining to Sharda canal including parks and pathway of Boudh Vihar Shanti Upvan situated at VIP Road, Lucknow and to restore the damage already caused by starting the construction. III. To issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice. IV. To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.";