Dr. B. Jha Mrinal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 9539 of 2020 ====================================================== Dr B Jha Mrinal S/o Sudist Narayan Jha Resident of Doctors Colony, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Dist- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department.

2.

The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5.

The Traffic Superintendent of Police, Patna.

6.

The Superintendent of Police, Hajipur.

7.

The Secretary, National Highway Authority of India. 8.

The Managing Director, National Highway Authority of India. 9.

The Union of India through its Secretary, Surface Transport Department, New Delhi.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Suman Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Lalit Kishore, AG Ms Binita Singh, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ) 12-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

The learned counsel, appearing in support of this public interest action, submits that the work for reconstruction on the eastern lane of the Ganga Bridge, popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi Setu in between Hajipur and Patna has already

Patna High Court CWJC No.9539 of 2020(2) dt.12-01-2021 2/2 commenced and in view of these developments, during pendency of this writ application, the same has become infructuous. It is further submitted that in view of dismantling of eastern flank of Ganga Bridge, the same is witnessing recurrent traffic jam as only one side of the bridge is operational at the moment. The same is causing great difficulty to the public in free movement in between north and central Bihar. He submits that some directions be issued to the Authorities for taking appropriate steps to ensure that the traffic is allowed to move freely on the operational part of the bridge. This Court would observe that respondents No 3, 4, 5 and 6 owe a duty to maintenance of free flow of traffic without any obstruction on the operational part of the bridge. Having observed so, this Court would expect that all possible steps are taken by the Authorities for discharge of the duty, taken note of hereinabove, in accordance with law.

The writ application stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U