The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has questioned Tamil Nadu’s system for ensuring road quality and fixing responsibility for defective works, observing that officials appeared to be protecting those responsible even after changes in government. The court directed the state Highways secretary to submit a report on September 28 explaining the implementation of a 2010 government order and why it was not available on the department’s website.
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Thavaneethi, an assistant engineer in the Quality Control wing of the Tamil Nadu Highways Department’s Ramanathapuram division. The engineer challenged a charge memorandum issued by the Highways secretary in connection with allegedly substandard roads constructed at certain locations in Sivaganga district.
Representing the petitioner, advocate Raja Karthikeyan argued that the 2010 government order prescribed a three-level system for assigning responsibility for defects in road works. Under the framework, officials handling field execution would bear responsibility at the first level, quality-control officials at the second level and supervisory officials at the third level. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the charge against the engineer was arbitrary.
Justice P. Pugalendhi, hearing the case, noted that the 2010 order was not available on the Highways Department’s website. The court said that, as a citizen, it also travelled on highways and rural roads, and observed that most roads did not remain in service even for two years. The court also referred to cases it had heard concerning the alleged formation of syndicates in the award of road contracts.
The order recorded that several thousand crore rupees were being spent on road construction, but questioned whether an effective monitoring and control mechanism existed to ensure that the works were completed properly and to the required quality. It said that the system assigning responsibility to first-, second- and third-level officials under the 2010 order had not been implemented.
The court further observed that, despite changes in government administrations, officials appeared to be acting in a manner that protected those who had committed wrongdoing instead of taking necessary action. It said the absence of the 2010 order from the government website appeared to support that concern and described the continuation of the situation after a change in government as regrettable.
The High Court sought details of the procedure followed to ensure that roads were constructed according to the standards specified in contract documents. It also asked how many disciplinary proceedings had been initiated during the previous five years against officials at the first, second and third levels for defects or lapses, and what action had been taken against officials found responsible in the present case.
The Tamil Nadu Highways secretary has been directed to explain why the 2010 government order was not uploaded on the government website and to file a report on September 28. The report will place the department’s accountability framework and its enforcement record before the court.
