[Char Dham Road Project] Centre Opposes Petitioner's Request For Adjournment, Supreme Court To Hear The Case On Friday

In the Char Dham road project matter, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked for a convenience compilation of the relevant previous orders of the Court, with a view to ascertain if there has been any interim stay on construction.The order came when a request for 3 weeks' adjournment of the hearing was made by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appears for the petitioner-organisation 'Citizens for Green Doon', and SG Tushar Mehta vehemently opposed the same.The bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari was hearing the matter. The bench will now take it up on Friday after ascertaining the position as regards the order of September 8, 2020, which requires the road to have a width of 5.5 m per the 2018 notification of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and the subsequent amendment of the circular in 2020 to provide for a width of effectively 10 m, and if there is any interim stay.At the outset, the Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, for the petitioner-organisation, sought an adjournment of the matter by 3 weeks. "The parties are quarantined in Uttarkashi. My office is also affected by COVID. We have been caught amid a lockdown and the papers needed to finalise the written submissions are stuck. People need time to recover", he advanced.Opposing this request for adjournment, SG Tushar Mehta argued, "Whenever and wherever it is convenient, Mr. Gonsalves has been filing replies, written submissions. My objection is to the use of COVID in some matters! Please have it next week and let us be over with it! This matter involves questions of national security, it concerns roads on China border! ""Which you have built! There was no stay! You have completed your work- that is your case! You have filed photographs before the court!", countered Mr. Gonsalves"Is there any order of this Court stopping any activity?", asked the bench of Mr. Gonsalves.When Mr. Gonsalves replied in the negative, the bench observed, "Then we will record this statement and have the matter after 3 weeks. Then why will the SG object?"At this point, AG K. K. Venugopal submitted, "Your Lordships, there are convoys and troops to be taken to the Chinese border...If Mr. Gonsalves agrees that there is no stay and we can complete whatever work has not been completed, I have no objection to the matter being deferred by 3 weeks...""That is not what I said...But they say that they have been proceeding with the work at full speed! They have said on affidavit that they have completed many stretches and that they are still continuing the work!", pressed Mr. Gonsalves."So they can complete the work even if you seek adjournment?", asked the bench of Mr. Gonsalves."I don't want to say they are authorised because Justice Nariman's bench has ordered that...", Mr. Gonsalves began to reply. The Senior Counsel had sought to indicate the September 8, 2020 order passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman, directing that the roads in hilly and mountainous terrains for the Char Dham Highway project are to be constructed in accordance with the 2018 circular of the MoRTH and hence, the width of the road would remain at 5.5 metres."Why are you referring to it as so-and-so's bench, so-and-so's bench? It is the SC's order!", commented the Court."It is unfair...", intervened the SG."There is no letter of adjournment before us...", said the bench."That is because people are in quarantine. Papers got stuck in the lockdown. Please give me 3 weeks' time", pleaded Mr. Gonsalves."We can't give that long. The AG is a very senior, respected person and if he is saying that the matter relates to border routes, we need to hear it expeditiously. Why should border routes be stopped?", remarked the bench."The matter has been going on for months! Why are they suddenly insistent on it being heard now?", urged Mr. Gonsalves, even as the SG commented that "COVID is being used selectively by the petitioners"."Mr. AG, Mr. SG, we want to be clear about one aspect. Is there any interim order of this court anywhere staying anything?", asked the bench.The AG replied, "By the original order of Justice Nariman's bench (of September 8, 2020), they have refused to permit us to broaden the roads. But that is on the basis of a 2018 notification issued by the Ministry of Roads which said that the width should be 5.5 m. That notification mentions 'hilly areas' generally. Thereafter, the Ministry of Roads has amended its notification on December 15, 2020. The amended notification says that so far as the roads for defence purposes, which go right up to the Chinese border, are concerned, we have to broaden the roads to 7 m. It says that width has to be 7 m with 1.5 m paved shoulder on either side...We have continued to construct, but...""There is an order which contemplates that they may do what they want- It says that if they want to change the standard, they may...But I have an interpretation and they have an interpretation...There is no stay order! And they have carried ...

[Char Dham Road Project] Centre Opposes Petitioner's Request For Adjournment, Supreme Court To Hear The Case On Friday

Mehal Jain

Centre Opposes Petitioner's Request For Adjournment Of Hearing By 3 Wks; Supreme Court Posts Matter For Friday

Tags