Dismissed¶13

Satya Narayan Singh and Another v. Union of India and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2022WRIC/26301/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NHAI Project Director's Section 26 encroachment-removal order under the Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002 challenged by writ; dismissed on alternative-remedy ground — appeal lies to the Tribunal under Section 14 (orders/actions under Sections 26, 27, 28, 36, 37, 38), interim protection via Sections 16-17; writ-court circumspection where efficacious statutory remedy exists; no opinion on merits; order date 13.01.2022.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioners; petition dismissed without prejudice to their right to take recourse to the alternative statutory remedy under the 2002 Act. ¶13

Satya Narayan Singh and Another Vs Union of India and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioners; petition dismissed without prejudice to their right to take recourse to the alternative statutory remedy under the 2002 Act.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Project Director, NHAI under Section 26 of the 2002 Act directing removal of encroachment is liable to be set aside for want of proper adjudication required under sub-section (9) of Section 26 of the Act. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving open the petitioners' contention regarding adjudication under sub-section (9) of Section 26.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Ordinarily, where a statutory alternative remedy is available and is also efficacious, the Writ Court should be circumspect in entertaining the matter directly, unless the order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is without jurisdiction, or the vires of the Act or Rules under which it was passed is under challenge.

¶12

Key takeaways

In the present case, since the impugned order was passed on a representation submitted by the petitioners and the authority held jurisdiction, it was appropriate for the petitioners to avail the alternative statutory remedy under The Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002 rather than proceed by writ.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 26301 of 2021) before a Bench of Manoj Misra and Sameer Jain, JJ. The petitioners challenged an order of the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, passed under Section 26 of The Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002, directing them to remove encroachment from the concerned National Highway, contending that there was no proper adjudication as required under sub-section (9) of Section 26. The respondents took a preliminary objection on maintainability, pointing out that under Section 14 of the 2002 Act the Tribunal may entertain appeals from orders or actions under Sections 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38, and that interim protection is available under Section 16 read with Section 17. The Court held that where a statutory alternative remedy is available and efficacious, the Writ Court should ordinarily be circumspect in entertaining the matter directly, save where the order violates natural justice, is without jurisdiction, or its vires is under challenge; and, noting that the impugned order was passed on the petitioners' own representation with the authority holding jurisdiction, dismissed the petition without prejudice to the petitioners' right to pursue the statutory remedy, expressly reserving opinion on the merits.

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26301 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Singh And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Rai,Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

The Court has been addressed through Video Conferencing.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.

¶7

The petitioners have challenged the order of Project Director of National Highway Authority of India passed under Section 26 of The Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002 (in short 'Act') by which, the petitioners have been directed to remove encroachment from the concerned National Highway.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no proper adjudication as is required under sub-section (9) of Section 26 of the Act and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶9

A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition has been taken on the ground that there exists alternative statutory remedy for the petitioner to challenge the order impugned. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under Section 14 of The Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002, the Tribunal has power to entertain appeals from orders passed or actions taken under Sections 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 by the Highways Administration or an Officer authorized on its behalf, as the case may be; and that under Section 16 read with Section 17, the Tribunal has power to grant interim protection. It has, thus, been submitted that petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy, therefore, this petition may be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no doubt an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners but, the order impugned cannot be justified and, therefore, the writ petition

¶11

may be entertained.

¶12

Ordinarily, where there is statutory alternative remedy available and the same is also efficacious, the Writ Court should be circumspect in entertaining the matter directly unless the order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice or is without jurisdiction or the vires of the Act or Rules under which the order has been passed is under challenge. In the instant case, the order was passed on the representation submitted by the petitioners and the authority held jurisdiction, therefore, in our view, it would be appropriate that the petitioners avail alternative statutory remedy under the provisions of The Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002.

¶13

The petition is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy under the 2002 Act (supra).

¶14

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.1.2022 AK Pandey

Satya Narayan Singh and Another v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan Singh and Another v. Union of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Mohd. Shamim Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ghanshyam Pal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shivdutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others