Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


DHANARAM & ORS. v STATE & ORS. - CW Case No. 6594 of 2005 [2005] RD-RJ 1601 (3 December 2005)


Dhanaram & Ors. v. State of Raj.& Ors. 3rd December, 2005

Date of Order ::


Ms. Nupur Bhati]

Mr. P.S.Bhati ] for the petitioners.

Mrs.R.R.Kanwar, Addl.Govt.Advocate.

Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the respondents. ....

By this petition for writ a direction is sought by the petitioners for the respondents to act in accordance with sanctioned plan of Pradhaanmantri

Gram Sadak Yojna by constructing a road connecting village Punasar Khurd to Bapini road from km.1st of

Punasar-Bapini road to Vishwakarma Temple. An order for restrainment is also sought by the petitioner for making tar road towards km.4th of Punasar-Bapini road to Punasar Khurd being not sanctioned one.

According to the petitioners under

Pradhaanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna a BT road was sanctioned to connect the habitation of Punasar Khurd village by initial alignment of the road from km.4th of Punasar-Bapini road to Punasar Khurd. A change was made at the time of transect walk and road was km.1st proposed from of Punasar-Bapini road to

Vishwakarma Temple. According to the petitioners the respondents on 17.10.2005 again finalised the old route ignoring the positive approval of the road km.1st proposed from Punasar road to Vishwakarma

Temple. Being aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioners.

A reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the BT road was sanctioned to connect habitation of Punasar

Khurd village and Zila Parishad Jodhpur in the larger interest of public and looking to technical feasibility decided to sanction construction of road from km.4th Punasar-Bapini road to Punasar Khurd. The relevant portion of the reply to the writ petition worth to be quoted:-

"It is submitted that after undertaking the transect walk, approval of the Zila Parishad and considering technical feasibility and viability, it was decided to carve out the road from kms.4th of punasar-Bapini road to

Punasar Khurd (via Government Upper Primary

School, Lolon ki Dhani Punasar Khurd having 150 children. Government Sikshkarmi Primary

School, Kherla Nada having 250 children and

Rajiv Gandhi School, Paunon ki Dhani having 50 children and thus, it is clear that it will cover more clusters of the habitations as well as it will also cover three more schools and thereby a more access to the road, will be provided to the public at large. The work is absolutely having object sought to be achieved i.e. to connect more habitation to the road.

It is relevant to mention here that the

Gram Panchayat passed the resolution dated 22.6.2005 and approved the aforesaid route.

The transect walk was also conducted on 22.6.2005 and factual report was prepared. A copy of the resolution and factual report is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-

R-1 and Annexure-R-2 respectively.

Thereafter the aforesaid proposal was further approved by the Zila Parishad,

Jodhpur vide their meeting dated 23.9.2005.

Consequent upon the aforesaid change in alignment and duly approved by the Zila

Parishad, Jodhpur the matter was moved to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Jaipur and from where vide letter dated 7.11.2005 it was informed to the Superintending Engineer,

P.W.D., Circle, Jodhpur that sanction for construction of the road as per new alignment "Punasar-Bapini Road to Pauo ki

Dhani. A copy of the letter dated 7.11.2005 is also submitted herewith and marked as


From reading of reply of the State Government it is clear that the decision is taken by the respondents in larger public interest which does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also failed to show their any right adversely effected by constructing road from km.4th Punasar-Bapini Road to

Punasar Khurd.

In view of whatever discussed above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same, therefore, is dismissed.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.