Dismissed

Mangesh Warna Sahakari Pani Purvatha Seva Sanstha Maryadit, v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2012WP/4951/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined the writ petition seeking direction to shift water supply pipelines from National Highway No. 4. The judges found no specific statutory provision imposing such a duty on the Highways Authority. Citing absence of legal basis in the relevant Act, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to sanction proposal for shifting water supply pipelines denied.

Mangesh Warna Sahakari Pani Purvatha Seva Sanstha Maryadit… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP-4951-11

¶2

Chandka

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4951 OF 2011

¶6

M/s. Mangesh Warna Sahakari Pani Purvatha Seva Sanstha Maryadit ..Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar with Mr. Amogh Karandikar i/b. Khandeparkar & Associates for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ashok Verma for Respondent No.1 – Union of India. Mr. Nitin S. Dhumal for Respondent No. 2. Mrs. Kavita Anchan for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶11

CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶12

22 March 2012

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶15

The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents Highway Authorities to sanction the proposal for shifting the water supply pipelines of the lift irrigation scheme at Village Ghunaki, Taluka Hatkanangale,

1/3

WP-4951-11

Chandka

District Kolhapur in accordance with the drawings approved by the respondent no. 2.

¶20

At the outset, we asked the learned counsel to show the relevant provisions of the National Highway Authority of India Act 1988 in this regard, which the learned counsel could not point out.

¶21

It is brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for respondent

¶22

no.5 that the road widening of National Highway No. 4 had taken place in 2005 and there is no complaint till this date that the pipeline laid by the petitioner for lift irrigation purpose either damaged by the said work nor there is any complaint thereof. Similarly, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no provision under the Highway Act which imposes statutory duty on the Highway Authorities in this regard.

¶23

The counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice Clause 16 of the Act, which deals with functions of the Authority. Some of them are as follows:

¶24

“To conduct survey, develop, maintain and manage highways vested in or entrusted to the Highway Authorities.”

¶25

Sub section (2) of section 16 contains the functions to be discharged by the

2/3

WP-4951-11

Chandka

Highway Authorities. Perusal of the same does not show that the directions sought by the petitioner to the Highway Authorities can be given based on these functions which are required to be discharged by the Highway Authorities. In absence thereof, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ petition dismissed.

¶30

(SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶31

3/3

Mangesh Warna Sahakari Pani Purvatha Seva Sanstha Maryadit, v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Warna Sahakari Pani Purvatha Seva Sanstha Maryadit, v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Rajesh Bharat Latkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Shri. Bhau Daji Patil (Since Decd) through Legal Heir, Anant Bhau Patil and Ors. Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation, Collector Office and Ors.

Shri. Mahadev Krushna Dhere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Co-Operative Bank Employees Union, Sangli, through Joint General Secretary Vs the Assistant Registrar, Bir Act, Pune and Ors.

Co-Operative Bank Employees Union, Sangli, through Joint General Secretary Vs the Assistant Registrar, Bir Act, Pune and Ors.

Tata Business Support Services Limited Vs the Superintending Engineer,Rasta Peth Uran Circle, Maha. State Electiricity Distribution Co.and or