Ugrasena Nayak vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, Ugrasena Nayak and others, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), an opposite party, filed an affidavit stating that the construction of a Pedestrian Under Pass (PUP)/Flyover at Pipilia Chowk, including a slip road and RCC covered drain, was approved in-principle by the Competent Authority of RO, Odisha. This project, with an estimated cost of Rs. 13.46 Crore (including GST) under a Change of Scope, was dependent on factors like vehicular traffic intensity, space availability, and public interest. Detailed cost estimates, designs, and drawings were under process. The NHAI counsel clarified that the PUP would be usable by motor vehicles, including tractors and buses, but not trucks.

Held

The Court noted the affidavit filed by the NHAI, which detailed the in-principle approval for the construction of a Pedestrian Under Pass (PUP)/Flyover at Pipilia Chowk, including related infrastructure, with an estimated cost of Rs. 13.46 Crore (including GST). The Court also took note of the clarification by the NHAI counsel regarding the usability of the PUP by various motor vehicles. Considering the information provided and the ongoing processes for detailed estimation and design, the Court was of the view that the petitioners should follow up on the proposal for its timely implementation. No further directions were deemed necessary at that stage. The principle derived is that once a project is approved in principle and procedural steps are underway, the court may direct the concerned parties to follow up rather than issuing specific orders for commencement, unless there is a clear delay or inaction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proposed Pedestrian Under Pass (PUP) at Pipilia Chowk, as approved in-principle by the NHAI, is to be implemented in a timely manner. The petitioners, through their writ petition, sought directions for the implementation of this project. The NHAI, in its affidavit, provided details of the approval and the ongoing processes. The Court had to consider the stage of the project and whether further judicial intervention was necessary. The arguments presented primarily revolved around the status and expected timeline of the project, with the petitioners implicitly seeking to expedite it and the NHAI outlining the procedural steps involved.