LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. versus UMED RAM SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-· 251 v. llllll Ull SllAlllA ' CJIS. FEBRUARY 11, 1986. [V.D, TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK & SABYASACHI MlJIQIARJI, JJ,] Constitution of I\idia, 1950, Articles 19(l)(d), 21 & 38 - Right to life embraces not only ~hysical existence of life but the quslity of life - For residents of hilly areas - Access to road, access to life itself - Roads for communication - Provision of - Constitutional obligation - Court - Whether entitled to give directions in cases of ~xecutive inaction or slow action. The petitioner, State sanctioned construction of a road known as Ghamia-llatti-Bhukho road in district Simla. The total length of the road was about 5 kms. and the construction was started imnediately in 1977. When the construction of the road approached about 3/060 kms., there was obstruction and the construction was stopped due to one reason or the other. Thereafter the work had been resumed once or twice in a half hearted manner but it_ could not be completed, due to lack of funds since a sum of Rs. 40,000/- allocated during the finan- cial year 1984-85 for the construction of this road had already been fully-utilised. Respondents Nos. 1 to 15, residents of nearby villages, addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court complaining (i) that they had been totally deprived of the road facility; (ii) that they had to go to the city after negotiating steep ascent of 4/5 miles and only after such a strenuous effort they were able to establish contacts with the city; and (iii) that democracy was meaningless to them. In those circumstances, they prayed for court's intervention and action on this behalf. The High Court treated the aforesaid letter as a writ t· petition and after receiving reply from the State Government, :- ' it found that the people of the ares were denied the benefit A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l986] 1 S.C.R, ct the use of the road in a contiguous length and that B01ll! > remedial action was expedient in the public interest. The High "" Court also recorded the statement of the Superintending Engineer that there was no reason why the road could not be constructed gradually onwards and that during the financial year to make the road serviceable an expenditure of about Rs, 90,000/- would be necessary and ss against this requirement under the budget allocation, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- had been set apart for the purpose of widening the road. The High Court directed (1) that the Superintending Engineer of the PWil should proceed with the construction of the road and to complete the same during the course of the current financial year; (2) that the Superintending Engineer s)lould make an application to the State Government demanding additional sum of Ra,50,000/- being sanctioned for the construction- of the add road; (3) that the State Government should favourably consider the demand of the Superintending Engineer. While giving the above directions, the High Court noted that the construction of the road had progressed in varying degrees and in a somewhat haphazard IWllU!r and the road had not become serviceable beyond 3/060 kms. The petitioner, in this special leave to appeal under Article 136, questioned the power of the High Court to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the State Government either to allot any particular sum for expenditure on account of particular project or to allot amounts in addition which have already been allotted under the current financial budget of the State Government and thus to regulate even the procedure in financial matters of the State, which, according to the petitioner, were the exclusive domain .._ of the legislature as contained in Articles 202 to 207 of the, Constitution. • Disposing of the petition, llBU> : 1 ( i) There was nothing improper or illegal in the order passed by the High Court directing the State Government to carry out the construction as quickly as possible within the sanctioned limits. The High Court has not transgressed its jurisdiction of supervising executive eetion in view of the time taken to construct the road. lt has not transgressed its _,,. limits by substituting its priorities. There has _been ' + STATE v, UMED RAM SHARMA 253 allocation. The court !las directed the executive to bring it to the notice of the legislature if some re-allocation was feasible amongst the sanctioned ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.