Disposed

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingale v. Mumbai Nashik Exprressway Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2015PIL/174/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding the Gonde-Vadpe road under a 20-year concession agreement, the Bombay High Court held that the petitioner failed to produce evidence justifying the stoppage of toll tax collection. The court observed that it is the contractor's responsibility to maintain the roads. Consequently, the proceedings were disposed of without expressing an opinion on the road conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was told to move in the future if a cause of action arises.

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

174.14-pil.sxw

¶2

skn 1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 174 OF 2014

¶5

Nirbhay Foundation. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mumbai-Nashik Expressway Ltd & others. ... Respondents.

¶6

Mrs.Indrayani M. Koparkar for the petitioner.

¶7

Shilpan Gaonkar with Ms.Devyani Deshmukh i/b. Kondukar Asso. for respondent No.1.

¶8

Naresh Dharujal i/b. M.V.Kini for respondent No.2.

¶9

V.N.Sagare, AGP for respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATED : 28^th January 2015.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 contractor should be stopped from collecting toll tax after recovery of total expenditure made in respect of Gonde-Vadpe road. According to the agreement of 2010, the contractor is to collect toll tax for 20 years. The petitioner contends that the roads are not maintained properly and certain vehicles are exempted from toll tax. The petitioner, therefore, seeks necessary direction to the respondents to stop collecting tax.

¶13

skn 2/2 174.14-pil.sxw

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that except making allegations in the petition, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the roads are not properly maintained. It is submitted that according to the agreement, respondent No.1 has sufficient time to collect toll tax.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused record.

¶16

Except communication made by the Chief General Manager (BOT) of National Highways Authority of India and the chart of traffic data, the petitioner has not placed on record any document to justify that respo-ndent is not maintaining the roads and therefore should not collect toll tax in future.

¶17

We observe that the respondent- contractor is responsible for maintaining the roads in proper condition. In case the respondent fails to maintain the roads in proper condition, then the State would take steps in accordance with the agreement executed between the parties. We have not expressed any opinion regarding condition of the road or liabilities of the parties. Petitioner is at liberty to move in future if cause of action arises.

¶18

6. With this observation, petition is disposed of.

¶19

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingale v. Mumbai Nashik Exprressway Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingale v. Mumbai Nashik Exprressway Ltd. and 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

Vikas Sahaji Gaiwal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Parashram Gopal Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Planning and Ors.

Maruti Sakharam Waghre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Samayak Sankalp Vichar Saustha, through Chairman Mrs. Kavita Vinaykumar Patekar Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Mukesh Shaligram Gondkar Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Rajan Dattatraya Parkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shri. Prakash P. Kukreja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Krantikar Kamgar Union Vs Shri. Prashant K. Kumar and Anr.

Shri. Prashant Prakash Adhangale and Ors. Vs the Vice-Chancellor through Registrar, Yashwantrao Chavan Maha. Open University and Ors.

Mr. Kunal Nandkumar Pensalwar and Anr. Vs the Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy and Labour Dept and Ors.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

The Administrator, Union Territory of Daman Vs Rankaj R. Patel