AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr.M.C.Bhoot, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.R.Punia, learned Additional Advocate General, Dr.Sachin Acharya, Dr.P.S.Bhati and Mr.Mukul Singhvi for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has averred that he is a resident of Suratgarh and a journalist by profession and that he is also a social worker. He has introduced himself as well as a member of Chaudhary Charan Singh Chowk Over Bridge Nirman Sangharsh Samiti (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Samiti") constituted with the objective of united movement to fulfil the public demand of construction of over bridge at the crossing no.94 and 95 situated on the busiest traffic road of Suratgarh City in the District of Sri Ganganagar. According to the petitioner, the proposal for the aforementioned project was accepted by the State Government in the year 2010-11 following which the Public Works Department of the State (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the PWD") was authorized to undertake the construction of over bridge at the railway crossing no.LC-95 and LC-94 The Committee was constituted by the PWD with its high ranking officials, who had technical expertise and that on a comprehensive and minute study of all relevant aspects, a proposal was prepared and submitted to the State Government by it. According to the petitioner, the proposal disclosed TVU (Total Value of Use) of crossing C-95 to be 104265 as per census of 2008 and a recommendation was made for three way and four lane over bridge covering two crossings, namely, C-95 and C-94, costing Rs.35 crores, out of which, Rs.8 crores was to be borne by the Railways on cost sharing basis. The proposal, according to the petitioner, contemplated that the over bridge would not only join the two parts of the City inhabited on both sides of the railway track but also solve the problems of congestion generated by the traffic from the national highways joining Sri Ganganagar, Hanumangarh and Bikaner. The petitioner has stated that on receipt of this proposal, the State Government, however, further authorized the Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Limited (for short, hereafter referred to as "the RIDCOR) to prepare a plan following which a second proposal was mooted in the form of two way over bridge connecting Badopal, Rawatsar and Suratgarh City road. The petitioner has averred that the second proposal was unacceptable as the same ran contrary to the survey done by the City Planning Department and the PWD and the very foundation thereof was untenable besides being not viable for execution as following the closure of the railway crossing no.C-95, there was no alternate way to release the traffic towards Hanumangarh. That this proposal did not meet the approval of the representatives of the railways, has also been stated. Situated thus, the Samiti approached this Court with D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9813/2011, which was disposed of on 14.10.2011 with the liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation and the respondents were directed to consider the same. A representation, thereafter, was submitted on behalf of the Samiti to the Chief Secretary of the State and hearing thereon was taken by the jurisdictional Collector in which the representatives of the Samiti were present.
(3.) IN this background, the respondents no.10 and 11 Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure & Finance Development Corporation and IRCON International Limited respectively mooted a third proposal, according to which, the ROB was to start from Rawatsar road at the point of school and land on the road towards Sri Ganganagar. A provision for RUB (Railway Under Bridge) from Bikaner side to Hanumangarh was also proposed. According to the petitioner, the third proposal is also not acceptable amongst others on the ground that the traffic from all sides towards Suratgarh City and vice-versa while passing through RUB or ROB would have to negotiate through the service roads having 12.75 mtrs. width or have to take unnecessary round of 2-3 kms. The instant petition has thus been filed in the above factual background seeking appropriate writ, order or direction to the State-respondents to construct the railway over bridge as per the first proposal while quashing the third proposal.;