The Madras High Court on Monday refused to accept the submission of State Highways Department that it would take 18 months for it to construct a foot overbridge across Grand Northern Trunk Road near Kendriya Vidyalaya school at Anna Nagar West in Thirumangalam here.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad directed Government Advocate Akhil Akbar Ali to obtain instructions from the Chief Engineer by Wednesday as to whether it would be possible to construct the bridge within six weeks in the interest of the students.
The direction was issued during the hearing of a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate E. Ranganayaki, also the parent of a student studying in the school, impressing upon the imminent need for creating a pedestrian crossing or constructing a foot overbridge near the school.
The judges had taken serious note of the danger faced by the school students as well as others in crossing the main road on a daily basis and called for a report from the Highways department on the feasibility of constructing a foot overbridge at an ideal location.
Accordingly, A. Ravichandran, Divisional Engineer, Highways department, informed the court that the construction of a foot overbridge near the school was announced by Chief Minister ‘Edappadi’ K. Palaniswami during the budget demand for the year 2018-19 itself.
The administrative sanction for the preparation of a detailed project report for the construction work was also accorded by the Highways and Minor Ports Department on September 28 last year and a detailed feasibility study was conducted.
A steering committee had approved the study report on May 22 this year and the project with escalator facilities was estimated to cost ₹10.30 crore. “After obtaining administrative sanction from government for the estimated amount, the FOB will be completed within 18 months,” he said.
It was brought to the notice of the court that a tunnel constructed in Phase I of Chennai Metro was passing underneath the school and an elevated level for Phase II was under consideration and hence the exact location of the FOB was yet to be finalised. The counsel representing CMRL told the court that it had no objection to the construction of the FOB. After recording his submission, the judges insisted on constructing the bridge at the earliest.