Site icon The Chenab Times

PIL filed in J&K High Court against the Sinthan road’s delayed opening

PIL filed in J&K High Court against the Sinthan road's delayed opening

Following repeated denials by the District Administration Kishtwar regarding the opening of the prestigious Sinthan top road connecting Kishtwar District with Srinagar via South Kashmir Anantnag District, Ghulam Rasool Magrey, a prominent Social and Political Activist from Marwah, filed a Public Interest Litigation at the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which is scheduled to be heard soon.

The petitioner stated in the PIL that the Tehsil Marwah and Wadwan areas of District Kishtwar have a large population, and that the government built the Sinthan Kishtwar Road to make it easier for the people of Marwah and Wadwan, which consist of approximately 28 large villages with thousands of people, to reach Kishtwar. However, this route was built for vehicular traffic as well, so that residents of these areas can get to Kishtwar in the shortest time possible. However, the abovementioned route remained closed throughout the winter season and was reopened for vehicle traffic during the summer season solely to give minimum road facilities to residents of Tehsil Marwah and Wadwan.

It was also stated that prior to the construction of the road, residents of Tehsil Marwah and Kishtwar had to travel all the way from Anantnag, Banihal, Ramban, and Doda Highway, covering at least 400 kilometres to reach Kishtwar, whereas the Sinthan Kishtwar Road covers only a few hours and the distance is cut in half.

It is critical to note that Tehsil Marwah and Wadwan are remote places with limited access to basic commodities, and residents of these places must go to Kishtwar to obtain daily necessities for survival. With this in mind, the government built Sinthan Kishtwar Road to allow these people to reach Kishtwar and obtain critical commodities within hours, ensuring their existence.

According to the petitioner, the Sinthan-Kishtwar Road is closed during the summer season without any justification due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and this has undoubtedly caused a slew of problems, particularly for the poor and downtrodden residents of these areas, who must now travel 400 kilometres through Anantnag, Banihal Doda, and Kishtwar.

It’s also worth noting that the District Administration has been blocking the route for more than a year, putting the lives of this large population in jeopardy.

That it is submitted that everyone is working hard to stabilise the system as a result of the covid-19 pandemic, but unfortunately in district Kishtwar, the government machinery/administration has its own mechanism to run without coordination and consultation on important issues, as is the case with the Sinthan Road.

Even though the District Administration has spent crores of rupees clearing snow and other obstacles on the same road this year, despite all efforts, the District Administration is adamant about not allowing vehicles from Sinthan road. One cannot imagine that recently trucks loaded with critical safety measures articles were also halted on the same road that were supposed to reach Marwah so that the people could move on.

On 5-5-2021, the petitioner approached the District Administration, i.e. Deputy Commissioner Kishtwar, to open this road to allow these people to travel to Kishtwar via the shortest route possible, so that the poor people living in these areas can make ends meet through other means. However, the District Administration is not listening to the people’s voices and has effectively put these people out of business.

The petitioner claimed that the respondents’/administration’s actions are unconstitutional, illegal, discriminatory, and arbitrary, and that they are part of a larger conspiracy to deprive Chenab valley youths of a dignified livelihood, and that they have a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to have access to roads, and that the state has a constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication. Denial of the right (to road) would be denial of life as defined by the Constitution in all of its richness and depth, and that if the remedy sought is not granted, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury that will not be compensated later by any means.

The relief sought in this application should be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the interests of justice.

Asif Iqbal Naik is a senior journalist and Senior Advisor at The Chenab Times

Exit mobile version