Plea Based On Newspaper Report, No Research Done To Support Claim: Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses PIL Alleging Cracks In A New Flyover

The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (January 20) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation petition, filed on the basis of a newspaper report, observing that no research or scientific report was submitted to support the claims regarding damages in a newly constructed flyover in the city. The division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain observed, “Since no research or scientific report has been placed by the petitioner to support the claims, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition.In view of above, writ petition is disposed of.”The court further noted the state's submission that a Committee headed by the Chief Engineer visited the site in question along with Engineer-in-Chief and Additional Chief Secretary and observed that the joints and gaps present were attributable to expansion and contraction due to changing seasons in summer/winter.During the hearing on Monday the counsel for petitioner submitted, “As per the impugned order, respondent no. 1 ne inquiry ke liye order kiya hai aur isme jinko adhyaksh banaya hai committee ka. Actually ye work unhone hi karaya tha jiski shikayat hui hai” (The respondent has ordered an inquiry. The person who is heading the committee got the construction done which is being complained of). Meanwhile the State's counsel said, “That report has already been filed. The petition becomes infructuous because the person he is talking about he was transferred way back in 2020 out of Jabalpur. Now this committee which was constituted on 03.01.2025 has already submitted its report on 10.01.2025. We have filed the inquiry report. The inspection was done in the presence of the Additional Chief Secretary and the Engineer-in-chief and has been uploaded. There are superficial cracks on the tarring that was done. Now what they do not understand is that there are slabs in between the bridges. There is small gap left in the bridges so that they could expand and contract in the summer/winter seasons. They are confusing with that. They have filed PIL. Basically they have some personal vendetta against the person who was already transferred in 2020. He was never the part of the project. The flyover work 99 percent is complete. Everything is done. It is almost a 7 km flyover and majority of the portion is already in working condition. It was inspected with five photographs also. They are unnecessarily agitating the issue.”The counsel for petitioner however argued that another department should inspect the flyover, arguing that the official who got construction completed had been made to head the committee which inspected the flyover after cracks had allegedly appeared. The court asked the respondent, “Their report has been accepted?”. To this the State said that the report is clear. "ACS himself came and inspected along with Engineer-in-chief. Superficial corrections are going on. 99 percent work is already complete," the counsel added. The court asked the petitioner's counsel, “Aapke photographs kya kehte hain dikhana zara. Aapne koi photographs liye hain?” (What does your photographs show? Have you taken any photographs) To this the petitioner's counsel submitted that, “Maine paper cuttings paste kiye hain. Usme ye hai ki itne zada damages hain. Public ke chalne layak bhi nahi rahega.” (I have taken newspaper cuttings. It shows that there is a lot of damage and the flyover is not meant for public use). The court asked, “Ye akhbar ke cuttings ke base pe file kardi petition? Aapne visit kiya hai site?” (You filed the PIL based on newspaper cuttings? Did you visit the site)The counsel said that they had visited the site. To this court asked as to where was it mentioned in the petition that the petitioner had visited the site. The court asked, “Aapka homework kya hai? Akhbar me toh pata nahi kya kya chapta rehta hai. Akhbar ke base pe petition file karenge aap?” (Where is your homework? Lot of things are written in the newspaper. Can you file a petition based on newspaper report?)The court thereafter refused to entertain the plea. Case Title: Narmada Prasad Mishra Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 1953 Of 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 21Click Here To Read/Download Order

Plea Based On Newspaper Report, No Research Done To Support Claim: Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses PIL Alleging Cracks In A New Flyover

Anukriti Mishra

Tags