- (1.) BOTH these petitions presented as public interest litigation seek direction to the respondents to construct one underpass at Neem Nagar Railway Over Bridge (Reengus), District Sikar situated at National Highway No.11 and one underpass & one divider/cut at Trilokpura, District Sikar situated at National Highway No.11.Facts in CWP-3753/2013
(2.) THE petitioner-Samiti claimed that the population of the village Trilokpura, District Sikar is around 50,000. The respondents are constructing four lane road at National Highway No.11 but in doing so they have not made any provision of a signle under pass for the residents of this village and other adjacent villages. It has been asserted that on both sides of the proposed four lane highway, there are many educational institutions, where thousands of students are studying and cross the highway from both sides. Due to extension of Highway road into four lane, the respondents are constructing the road of about one and a half kms. at 15 feet height, but, they are not constructing even a single underpass under it, while at least one underpass and one cut are required looking to the population of the nearby areas and its traffic. That at NH-11, while there are many road crossings from Trilokpura to other villages like, Sujawas, Sherpura, Maksudpura, has been mentioned as well. Besides, there are many banks, post office, hospitals etc. situated on the southern side of the Highway. It is contended that while the respondents have not provided even one underpass and one divider/cut, they have provided two underpasses in the vicinity of Village Goriya, where the population is hardly 10% of that of Trilokpura, District Sikar. That several representations have been submitted by the villagers and others before the authorities of the NHAI', but the same have remained unheeded, has been mentioned as well. The respondent No.2, in the reply, has stated that Ch.(300 + 364) is not for the village Trilokpura and, in fact, the Ch.of Village Trilokpura is about 31 kms. away from the main chainage. The elaboration in its pleadings in this regard is extracted hereinbelow: "4.(ii)........The true and correct facts are that the Ch reffered as (300+364) is not for village Trilokpura. Infact the ch. of village Trilokpura is (300+960) which is nearly 30 km. away from the mentioned chainage. A one day Traffic/Origin-Destination survey was conducted at Ch: 330+980 and results are tabulated at Annexure-1. It can be seen from the Traffic Survey report that PCU count of the traffic requiring passing of NH at these junction is far below the requirement. Presently at this location PCU count is only 608 for traffic going from Trilokpura to Reengus and 578.50 for traffic going to Sikar from Trilokpura. Both these directional movement of traffic will require crossing of National Highway through the median cut provided at Ch:330+920. However to cater the needs of the residents of Trilokpura and its hamlets a junction with a median opening is considered sufficient. Railway have provided an underpass below the Railway Track since the existing Railway Track is at very high level and crossing over of railway track is not allowed which is contrary to Highway condition. It is also respectfully submitted that construction of underpass is decided after detail study of traffic data collected from detail survey by "Detailed Project Report Consultant and accordingly included in bid document. The average height of Embankment at this location is 1.2 mtr. and not 5 mtr. As alleged by the Petitioner. However, the embankment criteria at this location is governed by the approaches to the succeeding Major bridge at Ch:331+427.500 towards Sikar which is very close by. Since RHS of the old Major Bridge is retained as per the provision of Concession Agreement the height of embankment cannot be raised for accommodating any VUP/PUP at this chainage. However looking at this specific location and needs of local public an opening of 2m X 2m at Ch: 331+060 is provided which will facilitate the movement of pedestrians as well as two wheelers. Further a median cut is also proposed at Ch: 330+960 for local public to cross the NH-11. This arrangement of providing an opening of and a median cut will facilitate in better way than the existing facility available hitherto. 4.(iv) ......It is denied that Trilokpura village is situated at Southern side of highways were said facilities are existing. The very few population reside on Northern side. An Open area, barren land on Northern side exist between Highways and Railways line. " Thus, it has been pleaded that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Facts in CWP-3754/2013 The petitioners are residents of Neem Nagar (Reengus) and claimed that the population thereof is around 10,000. It has been averred that the respondents are constructing four lane road at NH-11, but while structuring an over bridge of one and a half k.m. (300 + 364 metres), they have not provided even a single underpass at the railway over bridge at Neem Nagar (Reengus), District Sikar. The petitioners have pointed out that there are many educational institutions on the northern side of the proposed over bridge, where thousands of students are studying and have to access this from both sides. Many villages are situated in the southern side of the Highway at Ranoli, population whereof is also around 10,000. Apart from pleading that there are 10 villages also on the northern side of the Highway at Neem Nagar (Reengus), the petitioners have asserted about the existence of many banks, post office, hospitals etc. on the southern side of the highway, for which, they assert, at least one underpass is required. They have contended that while the respondents have not provided the same vis-a-vis village Neem Nagar (Reengus), they have provided two underpasses in the vicinity of Village Goriya, where the population is hardly 10% of that of Neem Nagar (Reengus). That several representations have been submitted by the villagers and others before the authorities of the National Highway Authority of India ('NHAI', in short), has been mentioned as well to outline the factual backdrop justifying this Court's intervention. The NHAI in its reply while questioning the maintainability as well as the bona fide of the proceedings, has stated that there is no railway line at Km.300 + 364, and therefore, the question of constructing railway over bridge thereat does not arise. They have clarified that the railway over bridge is situated at Km.296 + 665 (Ch.50 + 563) and Neem Nagar area is situated on the southern side. It is considered appropriate to set out the recitation in the reply of the NHAI, detailing the topography of the area, the structural provisions and the facilities conceived of and are being provided as hereinbelow:- ". . . . .For the purpose of the present railway track span of 20 Meter and 21 Meter is under construction and also a span of 20 Meter is being constructed for the railway track pertaining to dedicated freight corridor. Besides this, two additional opening having span 18.0 Meter, 18.0 Meter are being constructed one in east direction and the another in west direction which will be available for local traffic. In this manner apart from this additional two openings and Two Opening with Rail Over Bridge are being constructed at Ch.50+040, 50+405, 50+524 in the eastern direction and similarly one opening is being constructed at Ch.50+603 in the western direction for the general public near the Railway Over Bridge Area hence against the demand of the Petitioners for only one opening, four opening are being constructed in the area of Railway Over Bridge. Similarly at Ch.51+300 there is level crossing which will be available for traffic of local people and help them to cross the highway. This is being submitted without prejudice to the above submissions that from the above facts it is evident that the Petitioners are seeking to fulfill their person interest in the garb of the Public Interest Litigation and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. "
(3.) THE answering respondent has further stated that the railway over bridge mentioned by the petitioner is at a distance of about 32 kms. from Reengus and there the railway line/National Highway being parallel, no over bridge is constructed. The answering respondent has further stated that three openings are constructed at Ch.50 + 033, 50 + 405, 50 + 524 in the eastern direction and one opening at Ch.50 + 603 in the western direction for the general public near the Railway Over Bridge Area, as against one underpass claimed by the petitioners.;