Allahabad High Court asks for details after Uttar Pradesh says 82 bridges are unsafe

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government to share complete details after it said that 82 bridges in the state are unsafe but still being used. The court was worried about public safety and asked for an official report.

The court’s order came during a hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Gyanendra Pandey. He had raised concerns about old and weak bridges across the state. The court said that the state must file an affidavit within two weeks. This affidavit should include the names and exact locations of all 82 unsafe bridges.

The court also wants to know who conducted the study on these bridges. It asked the government to mention the names and details of the committee that checked the bridges and declared them unsafe. The court wants to ensure that the people responsible for checking bridge safety are qualified.

Court wants full list and safety plan

During an earlier hearing, the court had asked the government if it had a detailed plan to maintain these bridges. If no plan existed, the court said one must be prepared quickly. The court said the public must be protected and no risk should be taken with people’s lives.

Gyanendra Pandey had told the court that many bridges in the state are very old. They should be checked carefully and if needed, closed until repairs are done. He said it’s important that the state carries out a detailed study of all bridges, not just a few.

The state lawyer told the court that Uttar Pradesh has about 2,800 bridges. Out of these, 82 were found to be unsafe in a recent inspection. The lawyer said that though these bridges are still being used, the government is aware of the danger. He added that officials are planning alternative routes and action will be taken soon.

ALSO READ: UP government approves hike in daily allowance for PRD personnel

ALSO READ: Mohammed Shami's Sister and Mother-in-Law linked to MNREGA scandal, other relatives also accused of fraud

However, the court was not satisfied with this explanation. It said that just saying “action will be taken” is not enough. The court asked the state to provide a full chart. This chart must include the name, location, and expected life of each of the 82 bridges.

The court also asked for updates on how often the bridges are checked, and what kind of repair or safety work has been done in the past. This way, the court can track how well the state is looking after the infrastructure.

The next hearing is scheduled after two weeks. By then, the court expects the government to provide all the required documents and a clear plan of action.