Dismissing petitions by the nine persons, including DMK Councillors R Arumugam and D Andavar, who had opposed the project on various grounds such as alleged flouting of procedures in issuing notification for it, Justice R Mahadevan said they were motivated personally against the project and the same was evident from the fact that they did not place the actual facts.
Noting that not even a stone had been moved though the initial notification for construction of the bridge was published in 2008, the judge observed that this was yet another round of litigation by the petitioners.
The petitioners had opposed the project on grounds including the contention that railways and state government did not consult the DMK-ruled municipality and wanted it to be a sub-way instead of a rail overbridge besides alleging that procedures had not been followed while issuing the notificiation.
Recording the submission of Additional Advocate General K Chellapandian that the delay caused great hardship to students, office-goers and patients, the judge said "public necessity is greater than private necessity and public rights are to be preferred to private rights."
Noting that the state government had scrupulously followed all legal procedures with respect to construction of the rail overbridge, the judge directed it to continue the process and complete the construction as expeditiously as possible.