The Chhattisgarh High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the lack of road and bridge connectivity to two villages in Bilaspur district, where residents reportedly remain cut off during the monsoon even after 75 years of Independence.
Court's Direction in PIL
Hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Neelesh Biswas, a division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal directed the Public Works Department (PWD) secretary to file a personal affidavit on the status of road and bridge infrastructure in Parsapani and Bagla Bhata villages near the Bilaspur–Marwahi bypass road.
The court observed that the issue affects a large number of villagers and warrants intervention in public interest.
Hardships Faced by Villagers
According to the petition, the villages lack an all-weather road and a permanent bridge over a seasonal hill stream, leaving residents isolated for two to three months every monsoon. During heavy rains, the overflowing stream makes the route impassable, cutting off access to hospitals, schools, markets and emergency services.
The PIL stated that villagers have faced decades of hardship despite repeated appeals to authorities. It alleged that official inaction violated the fundamental rights of residents and hindered access to development and welfare schemes.
Farmers in the area also face major difficulties transporting agricultural produce due to poor connectivity, the petition said.
Petitioner's Demands and Court's Action
The petitioner sought directions to the state government to construct an all-weather road and a permanent bridge, prepare a time-bound project plan and allocate funds for the work.
During the hearing, the state informed the court that the petitioner is a resident of Kota block in Bilaspur district and had approached the court over the lack of infrastructure in his village area.
Taking note of the grievance, the high court converted the matter into a suo motu public interest case and discharged the petitioner’s counsel after deciding to proceed independently.
The court's intervention underscores the persistent infrastructure deficit in remote areas, even decades after Independence, and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring fundamental rights to access and development.
