By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Feb 8: The High Court of Meghalaya has expressed serious concern over the condition of National Highway 6 at Kuliang and Pyrtakuna villages in East Jaintia Hills.
During a hearing of a PIL on Thursday over the poor condition of the highway, an affidavit was filed by the petitioner (Kynjaimon Amse) in response to the report filed earlier by the respondents.
In the affidavit, certain photographs of the highway were annexed, which, as per the details shared, were taken on January 26 this year at Sonapyrdi village, around Sonapur tunnel, Kuliang village, Pyrtakuna village, Dona Umbluh village and Ratacherra-Malidor (Assam border).
After perusing the same, especially the road’s condition at Kuliang and Pyrtakuna villages, the court in its order said it is alarming to say that the picture of the bridge as annexed, even to the naked eye, appears to be impassable and unfit for vehicular movement.
The court expressed serious concern over the condition of this stretch.
“Though submissions have been made in this regard by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (National Highway Authority of India) that tenders have since been floated, and contracts have been awarded for repair of the same, which he submits will require some more time, the abject condition of the road in the view of this Court requires and deserves to be attended to, on an urgent footing,” the court said.
S Sengupta, counsel for respondent No 1, prayed that he may be given some time to answer to the averments/statements made in the last affidavit filed by the petitioner, and produced a communication dated 06.02.2024 signed by the Project Director, wherein a status report as on 05.02.2024, with regard to the Jowai-Ratacherra road on NH-6, was enclosed.
“Though some pictures depict that some repair works are undergoing, the Project Director, it appears, has recycled the photographs at page 8 & 9, inasmuch as, the same photographs were produced before this Court as part of the earlier status report dated 11.12.2023,” the court said in its order.
It expressed displeasure at the flippant attitude adopted by respondent No. 1 in conducting the proceedings which are in public interest.
At this, Sengupta tendered an apology by submitting that these photographs were inadvertently included again. He also submitted that this will not be repeated.
The court accepted the apology and allowed the prayer of the counsel to file a detailed affidavit and status report to the last affidavit filed by the petitioner.
“It is further expected that urgent repairs as required are attended to at the earliest,” the court ordered.