Dismissed

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC15 Sept 2014PIL/12/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the decision of the Municipal Corporation to construct a flyover in the North-South direction at Mahavir Chowk, Aurangabad. The court ruled that the decision was not arbitrary and the petitioners' view was myopic, holding that the High Court would not interfere with the expert opinion of the municipal authority.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed and connected civil applications were disposed of.

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 PIL12.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 12 OF 2014

¶4

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and others

¶5

...Petitioners..

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

...Respondents..

¶9

Mr S. B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioners

¶10

Mr Sanjay Deshpande, Asst. Solicitor General for respondent No. 1 Mr P. G. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mrs A. V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 6 and 9 Mr S. V. Adwant, Advocate for respondent No. 7 Mr Y. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 8

¶11

WITH

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8502 OF 2014 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 12 OF 2014

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7216 OF 2014 IN

¶14

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 12 OF 2014

¶15

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7356 OF 2014 IN

¶16

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 12 OF 2014

¶17

CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE &

¶18

A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15^TH , 2014.

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.

¶21

2 PIL12.2014

¶22

This petition challenges the decision of respondent No. 7 to construct a flyover in the North-South direction at Mahavir Chowk. The bridge would be constructed North-South over the road from Central Bus terminus to Railway Station, Aurangabad by Respondent No. 7 M.S.R.D.C. - a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking for the purpose of construction of roads in the State.

¶23

In 2001, the Government of Maharashtra resolved to undertake over all development of Aurangabad City. They decided to implement a project worth Rs. 167.80 Crore for development of roads in and around Aurangabad City. The resolution identified certain flyovers and two Railway over bridges in Aurangabad city, one of them was an over bridge at Mahavir Chowk. In 2001, however the direction and orientation of the over bridge was not decided.

¶24

Eventually work of constructing the said flyover was allotted to respondent No. 7. On 19^th January, 2013, Respondent No. 7 appointed a consultant for rendering advice as to how the proposed flyover should be constructed. In May-2013, the consultant submitted his report and one of the options suggested was to construct a flyover in the North-South direction i.e. over the road connecting Railway station and Central Bus terminus. The other road that passes through the Chowk is Jalna-Ahmednagar Highway. The consultant suggested

¶25

3 PIL12.2014

¶26

four options in which one of the options was that, an over bridge can be constructed even over Jalna Ahmednagar Highway. But amongst all the options, the above mentioned option of over bridge connecting Railway station and central Bus terminus was opined to be most beneficial. This advice was accepted by respondent No. 7, and soon thereafter, tender notice was issued on 2^nd September, 2013. The tender was accepted on 9^th January, 2014 and work order was issued in favour of respondent No. 8 on 31^st January, 2014.

¶27

This petition is filed as Public Interest Litigation on 4^th March, 2014 asserting that the option exercised by respondent No. 7 was not proper and is against “public interest”. The petitioners suggested that, the option of over bridge going East-West on JalnaAhmednagar Highway is in public interest.

¶28

The petition is opposed mainly on behalf of respondent No. 7 by filing various affidavits justifying the correctness of their decision. The petitioners tried to suggest that since the traffic on Jalna Ahmednagar is heavier an over bridge in that direction is more beneficial.

¶29

In reply, respondent No. 7, laid before this Court various documents, reports, photographs and projections etc. to indicate that, though the petitioners' suggestion was one of the options, the

¶30

4 PIL12.2014

¶31

flyover under construction is more beneficial. Respondent No. 7 also asserted that, the decision to choose the orientation of the flyover from South to North or between the Railway Station and Central Bus terminus was taken after considering all the pros and cons. Respondent No. 7 also asserted in its affidavits that, the concerned Chief Engineer at the time of taking decision considered traffic in future and technical parameters laid down by Indian Road Congress etc. It is argued for Respondent No. 7 that the highway's through traffic between Jalna to Ahmednagar is already diverted by opening of bye-pass recently which moves from Jhalta Phata, to Shivaji Nagar to Sangram Nagar over brdge, to Paithan Link Road.

¶32

We have perused the affidavits as against the contentions of the petitioners contained in the petition and we found that the decision to construct the said flyover in the North-South direction cannot be said to be arbitrary and against public interest. It also occurs to us as to whether such a subject could be brought up before this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the decision of constructing this particular flyover was unlawfully taken. According to them, the Chief Engineer of respondent No. 7 was not empowered to take such a decision but the highest body of

¶34

5 PIL12.2014

¶35

respondent No. 7 viz. Board of Directors was expected to take such decision. In absence of objections from the State Government as well as the Board to the decision of the Chief Engineer, we are not inclined to give much importance to these submissions made at bar.

¶36

One of the major reasons for rejecting the option of flyover on Jalna-Ahmednagar road was that, the land on west would not have been made available by the defence department. This land of Defence is to the west of the square concerned. It is pointed out by respondent No. 7 that, since last 10 years, the Ministry of Defence is not allowing even broadening of existing highway between JalnaAhmednagar in portion of defence land on the west. In such situation, they justifiably found that there would be great difficulties in their way to construct a flyover towards the defence land. As against this, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, this excuse was lame one inasmuch as the affidavits of Ministry of Defence did not support the contentions of respondent No. 7. We are not going into the controversy that could arise in such dispute mainly because if flyover is to be constructed, the concerned authority would decide its direction, length and other technical aspects as per exigencies of the situation. Respondent No. 7 particularly pointed out that they were persuaded to construct this flyover in the North-South direction because the growth of Aurangabad city is faster and more in North & South direction of the square concerned. They pointed out

¶37

6 PIL12.2014

¶38

that, the development of Aurangabad city towards west is slow because of existence of Cantonment area and the area around Cantonment is declared 'No Development Zone'. We are aware that the city is growing more towards south direction along Paithan road and also towards North direction along Jalgaon road.

¶39

We must also deal with the opinion of Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Aurangabad, on this subject. He opined that the over bridge should be in the East-West direction i.e. on Jalna-Ahmednagar road. He does not appear to have had for consideration the various relevant factors that Respondent No. 7 considered while choosing an option. Having regard to other various factors that are revealed to us, we are of the view that the opinion of Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) is not fully based on relevant factors. Besides it is based on concern of traffic police. That is not the only factor which is relevant. On the other hand the opinion of the expert advisor of Respondent No. 7 is more circumspect and reliable. In its comparison the opinion of Assistant Commissioner deserves to be rejected.

¶40

Prima facie, we are of the view that this petition would not serve any public interest. The petitioners' point of view is found to be myopic. Having regard to this, we are not inclined to admit this petition.

¶41

7 PIL12.2014

¶42

The petition should fail. Same stands dismissed.

¶43

In view of dismissal of present petition, connected civil applications no more survive and stand disposed of.

¶44

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)

¶45

sgp

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aurangabad Bus Owners and Travel Agents Association and Others v. the Union of India and Others

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

Prabhakar S/O Dattatray Karajgar Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Town Planner and Ors.

Tariq Ahmed Azizoddin Farukki Vs the State of Maharashtra through Th Secretary Revenue and Forests Department, Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Kondaji Kale Vs Union of India and Ors.

Annay Bhrashtachar Nivaran Janhit Samiti, Ahmednagar Vs the Union of India and Another

Mohanlal Motilal Bhandari Vs Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri. Ajit Sakharam Kandar and Anr. Vs the States of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lakhan S/O Sahadeo Malik and Another Vs Collector, Washim and 2 Others

Babulal Rama Thakre Vs Work Load Committee and Ors.

Prakash Kishanlal Murkya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Kishanlal Murkya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Goraknath Gangaram Pardeshi Vs State of Mahahrashtra and Ors.

Mrs Beena John Vargis and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Goraknath Gangaram Pardeshi Vs State of Mahahrashtra and Ors.