Disposed

Ashok Champalal Yadav and 2 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thru. Its. Secty. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2008WP/1929/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL concerns a dispute between the State of Maharashtra and the Railways regarding who should fund and execute the widening of a bridge at Old Kamptee-Kalmana Road for public safety. The High Court directed Central Government intervention and preventive traffic diversion measures.

What did the court decide?

Directed Central Government intervention to resolve dispute between State and Railways; directed traffic diversion during peak hours; ordered forward of order copy to Ministry of Railways.

Ashok Champalal Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1929 of 2008

¶3

[A.C. Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Adv., for the petitioners.
Mr.O.D.Kakde,AGPforRespondentNos.1,2
and 4.

¶6

Mr. N.P. Lambat, Adv., for respondent no.3.
Mr.S.K.Mishra,Asstt.SolicitorGeneralfor
Govt. of India.

¶7

 -----

¶8

 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE AND
A.H. JOSHI, JJ.
 DATE : 15th October,2008.

¶9

1.HeardMr.B.G.Kulkarni,thelearned
Counselforthepetitioners,whohavemovedthis
PublicInterestLitigationPetitionseeking
directionstotheStateGovt.,aswellas
RailwayAuthoritiestotaketimelystepsto
widenthebridgeovertheChhindwaranarrow
gaugelineandlocatedatOldKamptee-Kalmana
Road.

¶10

2.Affidavits-in-Replyhavebeenfiledby
therespondentno.2aswellasrespondentno.3,
andthereisnodisputethatthesubjectbridge
isrequiredtobewidenedforthepublicsafety,

¶11

¶12

toavoidanyuntowardincidentresultingintoa
majormishap.However,theStateGovt.,andthe
Railwaysappeartobeatloggerheadsastowho
shouldtaketheresponsibilityofwideningthe
bridge.

¶13

3.InhisAffidavit,therespondentno.3
hasstatedthattheRailwayswouldundertakethe
wideningofthebridge,providedtheState
Govt.,iswillingtobearthefinancialburden
intermsofSection19(2)oftheIndian
RailwaysAct,1989.Therespondentno.3,
therefore,statesthattherequiredfundsareto
be provided by the State Govt.

¶14

4.Ontheotherhand,theAffidavit-in-
Replyfiledbyrespondentno.2statesthatitis
entirelytheresponsibilityoftheIndian
Railwaystowidenthebridgeandtoprovidefor
the funds required for the same.

¶15

5.Ourattentionhasbeeninvitedtothe
provisionsofSection19(3)oftheRailways
Act, 1989. The said provision reads as under :-
“19 (3) -Inthecaseofany
differenceofopinionbetweenthe
railwayadministrationandthe
StateGovt.,ortheLocal
Authority,asthecasemaybe,over
anyofthemattersmentionedin
Sub-section(1),itshallbe
referredtotheCentralGovt.,
whosedecisionthereonshallbe
final.”

¶16

¶17

6.Itis,therefore,necessarythatthe
CentralGovt.intervenesinthematterandsorts
outthedifferencesbetweentheStateGovt.,on
onehandandtheSouth-EastCentralRailwayson
the other.

¶18

7.WealsodirectthePrincipalSecretary,
PublicWorksDepartment,Govt.ofMaharashtra,
Mantralaya,Mumbai,totakeupthesubjectissue
withtheMinistryofRailwaysattheearliest
possible,sothatthewideningofthebridge
concerned is taken up expeditiously.

¶19

8.Atthesametime,therespondentno.4
maytakepreventivestepstodivertthetraffic
duringpeakhoursaspertheproposalsentby
theSeniorPoliceInspector[TrafficBranch],
North Nagpur.

¶20

9.We,therefore,directtheRegistrar
[Judicial}toforwardacopyofthisorderto
theSecretary,MinistryofRailways,Govt.of
India, New Delhi, forthwith.

¶21

10.WritPetitionisdisposedoffinterms
of the above directions.

¶22

 Judge

¶23

 Judge

¶24

|Hedau|

¶25

Ashok Champalal Yadav and 2 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thru. Its. Secty. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Champalal Yadav and 2 Ors. v. State of Mah. Thru. Its. Secty. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Janraoji Wankhede Vs Maha. Animal and Fishery Sci. Uni. Thru. Its Registrar and 2 Ors.

Dr. Prashant Hemraj Parate Vs Directorate of Medical Education and Research Thru. Its. Director and 5 Ors.

Manrajsingh S/O Hardevsingh Sandhu Vs the Mah.State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,Thr Its Divisional Secretary

Sk Sabgatullah Izatullah Jagirdar Vs State of Maha Thr Secretary and 3 Others

Pramod Shankarrao Donge Vs Trhe State of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai and 4 Others

Lower Painganga Project Nirman Samassya Niwaran, and Punarwasan Sanstha,Yavatmal Vs State of Mah.Revenue and Forest Dept.Mumbai and 6 Others