Allowed

Sunil Kumar and Another v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022WRIC/18837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ court held that a private limited company cannot exercise powers under Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, as such powers are statutory and non-delegable to private entities.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 09.06.2022 and 03.06.2022 is quashed, with leave granted to the respondent to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18837 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the power of respondent no.4, a private entity, in issuing notices dated 09.06.2022 and 03.06.2022 to the petitioners, exercising power under Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing them to remove their constructions from a National Highway as the same were an encroachment.

¶6

The ground of attack is that the power under Section 26 of the Act is vested in Highway Administration or the Officer authorized by such Administration in this behalf. Under Section 20, the Highway Administration, with prior approval of the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, is empowered to appoint a gazetted officer of the State Government or Central Government or officer of the National Highways Authority of India or any other Authority constituted under any other enactment to exercise powers and discharge such functions of the Highway Administration as may be specified in the notification.

¶7

It is urged that respondent no.4 is a private limited company and cannot be delegated with power conferred upon the Highway Administration under Section 26 of the Act.

¶8

Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3, at whose behest the impugned notices have been issued, very

¶9

fairly admits that power of Highway Administration cannot be delegated to a private entity. He submits that leave be granted to respondent no.3 to proceed afresh in terms of the provisions of the Act.

¶10

Accordingly, we quash the impugned notice but leave it open to respondent no.3 to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Petition stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.7.2022 skv

¶11

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.07.12 10:40:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar and Another v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar and Another v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shree Sai Trading Company Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Garima Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Chintamani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Pravesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Basant Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others