2026:JHHC:14170-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 5321 of 2025 Sarita Kumari, D/o Deo Narayan Yadav, R/o Professor Colony, Bilasi Town, PO, PS & District-Deoghar ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Works, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 4. The Circle Officer, Mohanpur, District-Deoghar ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II ----- Order No. 04 Dated: 11.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this purported Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has sought for prima facie contradictory reliefs. 3. Firstly, the petitioner, seeks to know the authority of law under which a 100 ft. bridge under the “Mukhyamantri Gram Setu Yojna” in Baljora village under Mohanpur Block over “25 ft. wide inland drainage” is being constructed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner opened his arguments by pointing out that there is no river or waterbody above which the bridge is being constructed. The prayer clauses and even the photographs annexed with the petition and with the counter affidavit belies his contentions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that there is no link road to the said bridge either proposed or provided, and therefore, this is a case of mis-utilization of public moneys. 6. Mr. Srikant Swaroop, the learned AC to AAG-II, on 2026:JHHC:14170-DB 2 instructions from Mr. K. C. Oraon, Revenue Inspector, has stated that the link roads are already provided. He further referred us to the documents dated 30.07.2024 annexed at page-17 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, which is nothing but a sanction order to invite tenders for this bridge project. Mr. Swaroop has submitted that there can obviously be no bridge without any roads to link the same and the allegation made in the petition is therefore not correct. 7. Mr. Swaroop pointed out that this is not at all a genuine Public Interest Litigation because the petitioner and others tried to stop the contractor from undertaking the works and even demanded money from such contractor. He submitted that this is not a Public Interest Litigation but this is a “Paisa Interest Litigation”. 8. In this case, Mr. Santosh Kumar Choudhary, B.D.O-cum-C.O, Mohanpur, Deoghar has filed an affidavit. 9. In paragraphs-7, 8 and 9, the affiant has stated that before commencing the construction of the bridge, the recommended site was inspected and assessed by the engineer of the department. After that, a direction was issued to formulate a D.P.R. After the D.P.R was formulated, technical approval and administrative approval was granted for the project. 10. In paragraph-8, the details of the project have been set out. It is submitted that the bridge in question is 38.72 meters 2026:JHHC:14170-DB 3 long. The approach road is 215 meters long from Rikhiya and 407 meters long from Baljora. The guard wall is 40 meters from Rikhiya and 30 meters from Baljora. 11. There is a statement in paragraph 9 that due to excessive rainfall during the monsoons, there is waterlogging, which makes it difficult for people from the area and the adjacent villages to commute over this site. Accordingly, on the recommendation of the local M.L.A, a project report was prepared and approved. 12. Further details of this project are set out in paragraph 11 of the affidavit. 13. In paragraphs 12 to 14 and 17, the affiant has in clear terms stated that certain individuals, including the petitioner, were creating hindrances to the construction of the bridge and approach road. Further, they were demanding money from the contractor; they were attempting to extort it. 14. In paragraph-15, there is a reference to reports made by the revenue authorities inter alia on the issue of approach roads. The affidavit states that this petition has been filed with oblique motives to facilitate extortion. 15. Significantly, no affidavit in rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner denying all these allegations. 16. However, even if we were to ignore all these allegations of oblique motives, we are satisfied that the grievances of the petitioner, assuming that they are real, stand fully redressed by the counter-affidavit in which there is a clear reference to 2026:JHHC:14170-DB 4 the approach roads that are being constructed as a part of this project. Besides, the learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, has stated that the construction of the approach roads is already completed. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes that the approach roads have been completed. At this stage, we do not wish to enter into this controversy. If the approach roads are not constructed or completed, then they must be constructed and completed in accordance with the statements in the affidavit. Even otherwise, it is inconceivable that the project would involve the construction of a bridge without approach roads to access the same. 18. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) May 11, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 12.05.2026