h475 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.2990/2025 Reserved on: 23.12.2025 Pronounced on: 26.12.2025 Uploaded on : 26.12.2025 Inhabitants of Village Kalsian, Panchayat Kalsina, through its representative Bahadur Nath, Age 69 years Ex-Sarpanch, Panchayat Kalsian S/o Late Sh. Paras Ram R/o Village Kalsian Tehsil Nowshera, District Rajouri ....Petitioner(s) Through:-Mr. Waheed Choudhary, Advocate V/s 1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner Secretary PWD (R&B), Department of Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Jammu. 3. Superintendent Engineer PWD(R&B), Circle Rajouri. 4. Executive Engineer PWF(R&B), Nowshera. 5. Parveen Sharma, S/o Tilak Raj R/o Village Kurlian, Tehsil Kalakote District Rajouri 6. Sh. Surinder Choudhary Hon9ble Deputy CM, (Minister for PWD 9R&B) UT of Jammu & Kashmir. ...Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-1 to 4 Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan, Advocate for R-5 None for R-6 Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. By way of this writ petition, filed on behalf of inhabitants of village Kalsian through Bahadur Nath, in representative capacity, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash allotment order No.SER/R&B/46/4864-68, whereby work for construction of 45 2 meters span motorable bridge along with approach road connected to Kalsian Satsang Ghat to Handan Tanda, has been allotted in favour of respondent No.5, in terms of e-NIT No.12 of 2025-26 dated 03.07.2025. A further direction is sought upon the respondents, more particularly respondent No.5 to execute the work strictly as per the DPR prepared and approved. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The case of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, is that in the year 2023, people of Kalsian and Handan Tanda Panchayat approached the concerned MLA for completion of pending work, which involves construction of 20 meter span of motorable bridge along with approach road connecting Kalsian Satsang Ghar to Handan Tanda. On the recommendations of the then MLA, DPR for construction of remaining 20 meter motorable span bridge alongwith existing approach road, was duly prepared and forwarded to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under NABARD scheme. 3. It is stated that while issuance of e-NIT was under consideration, election in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir was announced, as such, NIT could not be issued due to imposition of model code of conduct. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the election was over and government formed, respondent No.6, elected MLA from the constituency, who happened to be the Deputy Chief Minister having portfolio of PWD (R&B), in order to show his power in the political 3 corridor, managed shifting of the aforesaid work to some other place under the same nomenclature, got the DPR approved on 08.07.2023, and got the NIT issued for allotment of contract under new alignment, which is about six hundred meter away from the already existing road. The petitioner along with other members of the Panchayat stated to have approached respondent No.6 with their grievance but of no avail, aggrieved whereby the petitioners approached this Court by way of present writ petition on the ground that though the e-NIT has been issued with the same nomenclature but for totally different work, which is contrary to the earlier DPR; once the DPR has been approved, same cannot be shifted to other place without any justifiable reason; besides, approach road between kalsian Satsangh Ghar to Handan Tanda, pillars of the bridge connecting both the villages, have already been constructed and only 20 meter motorable bridge was required to be constructed, as such, the respondents are duty bound to complete the execution of work in terms of the earlier DPR dated 08.07.2023; shifting of the alignment remained unexplained by the official respondents. 4. Per contra, official respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioners by filing their objections. It is stated that a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for construction of 45 meter span motorable bridge alongwith approach road connected to Kalsian Satsang Ghar top Handan Tanda was prepared and sent to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for approval. Subsequently, respondent No.4 got the administrative 4 approval from respondent No.2 vide Order No.60 of 2015-26 dated 03.07.2025 at an estimated cost of Rs.321.00 lacs, for which technical sanction also stands granted. Consequently, respondent No.3 floated the tender for the aforesaid work vide e-NIT No.12 of 2025-26 dated 03.07.2025, which came to be allotted in favour of respondent No.5. It is submitted that the construction work i.e foundation work at proposed site commenced, after obtaining the mandatory technical vetting from Dr. S.M.Gupta, Professor (Structures) Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana, foundation work of the proposed site was commenced. Insofar as 20 meter span of Motorable bridge along with approach road connecting Kalsian Satsangh Ghar to Hanan Tanda is concerned, it is stated that the same has actually been taken up by the Rural Development, Rajouri as per the DPR approved by the Assistant Commissioner Development, Rajouri. To substantiate this fact, respondents have placed on record a copy of the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Nowshera vide No.BDO/NSR/2025-26/895 dated 07.11.2025. 5. Mr. Waheed Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the proposed DPR has been made only on the directions of the MLA concerned, who happened to be the Deputy Chief Minister, without any justifiable reasons. He further argues that once the DPR stands approved in the year 2023, the respondents have no jurisdiction to change the scope of the work by changing the DPR. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the project of which the petitioners are seeking implementation is entirely a different project undertaken by the Rural Development Department regarding which DPR at an estimated cost of Rs.57.90 lacs was approved by the Assistant Commissioner Development, Rajouri. He relies upon a certified issued in this regard by the Block Development Officer, Nowshera. He would further argue that a project of public importance has been stalled by an interim order of this Court and if the construction work of the project in question is not allowed, the funds earmarked for the project during this financial year would be lapsed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. According to the petitioner, DPR for the construction of 20 mtr span motorable bridge along with approach road connected with Kalsian to Satsang Ghar Road to Handan Tanda was approved in the year 2023, however, e-NIT could not be issued, whereas, as per the stand taken by the official respondents, abutments, approaches and filling of works namely, construction of steel girdar motorable bridge of 23 mtr span between Handan and Kalsian was undertaken by the Rural Development Department under MGNREGA and BADP as per the duly approved DPR for <Completion of Construction of Steel Girdar Motorable Birdge 23.00 MTS spans between Handan and Kalsian=, reliance in this regard is placed on a certificate issued by the Block 6 Development Officer, Nowshera. Relevant extract of the certificate is reproduced hereunder:- <It is certified that the abutments, approaches and filling of work namely construction of steel girder motorable bridge 23.00 mts spans between Handan and Kalsian were constructed by Rural Development Department (MGNREGA and BADP).= 9. It appears that the pillars, which according to the petitioners have been constructed for the motorable bridge connecting Kalsian Satsangh Ghar to Handan Tanda, have been constructed by the Rural Development Department as per the DPR approved for 8completion of construction of steel Girdar motorable bridge 23 Mts span between Handan and Kalsian9, it has nothing to do with the Construction of 45 Mtr span motorable bridge along with approach road connected to Kalsian Satsangh Ghar to Handan Tanda, for which, after getting administrative approval as well as technical sanction, contract stands allotted to respondent No.5, in terms of the e-NIT No.12 of 2025-26 dated 03.07.2025. 10. Insofar as plea of the petitioners that once the DPR stands approved for construction of a bridge at a particular place its subsequent change by fresh DPR is not permissible is concerned, suffice it to say that the Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of a particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub- serve the larger public interest. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and others, (2011) 12 SCC 69, while dealing with the issue has observed as under:- 7 <Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.= 11. From the afore-quoted observations of the Supreme Court, it is manifest that while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot go into the question of viability and feasibility of the construction of the bridge in question and it is best left to the judgment of the experts of the respondents. 12. Time and again, it has been held by the Supreme Court that ordinarily infrastructure projects should not be interfered. In M/s N.G. Projects Ltd. v. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain, (2002) 6 SCC 127, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court should keep in mind the intent of 8 legislature that infrastructure project should not be stayed. Relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:- <Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the Writ Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.= 13. In view of the settled legal position, interference with the construction of bridge in question, which is an infrastructure project, is uncalled for by this Court, because the feasibility and viability of the bridge and connected road is to be decided by the experts involved in the project. In the instant case, as per the respondents they have not shifted the alignment of the bridge, as alleged by the petitioners, rather it is the stand of the respondents that the bridge, the petitioners are asking for is to be constructed by the Rural Development Department under a different scheme for which DPR stands already approved. 14. For all what has been said above, I find no merit in this petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim direction shall also stand vacated. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Jammu. 26.12.2025 Vinod. Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable: No Vinod Kumar 2025.12.23 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document