PIL regarding unauthorized highway barricades and check-post facilities. Court noted barricades removed and check-post facilities found adequate via affidavit. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil.93.14
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Public Interest Litigation No.93 of 2014
(Paramjeet Singh Kalsi
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary [Transport], Home Department, Mumbai and others)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 & 7. Mr. A.A. Kathane, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Uday Dastane, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 1, 2015.
Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
The present public interest litigation has been initially filed with two fold grievances that (i) respondent No.6 had erected barricades on the National Highways without there being permission of the competent authority and (ii) the facilities as required to be provided under the contract for modernization of check-posts, such as data entry, scanning etc. were not provided.
Insofar as the first grievance is concerned, since there was no permission from the National Highways Authority of India, we have directed the State Government to remove all such barricades. However, the barricades have been removed. The matter is pending before the competent authority for grant
of permission for access permission. We make it clear that unless
pil.93.14
2/3
there is a permission from the competent authority, the respondents shall not put barricades, as already observed by us in our earlier orders. If the State is interested in preventing the vehicles to escape the collection of revenue, the State can always put the barricades in a zig-zag manner so that the vehicles travel on the highways, at the same time, the tax evader can be apprehended and made to pay the tax.
Insofar as the second grievance is concerned, by an order dated 12/08/2015, we have already directed the State Government to depute a responsible Officer to conduct surprise visits to two or three border check-posts on a random sample basis and find out as to whether the facilities, as are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 28/04/2015, are made available or not.
In pursuant to the aforesaid directions, an affidavit has been filed on 21/09/2015 by Mr. Sharad Jichkar, Regional Transport Officer Nagpur (Rural). In the affidavit, it is stated that the State Government has appointed Mr. Pendamkar, the Regional Transport Officer to conduct surprise visits on three check-posts viz. (1) Dapcheri/Acchad, Thane, (2) Nandni/ Mandrup, Solapur and (3) Umarga, Usmanabad. A chart has been placed on record. Perusal of the chart would reveal that all the facilities, as are required to be provided on the checkposts, are provided.
pil.93.14
3/3
In that view of the matter, we do not find that any
purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Hence, the petition is disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE *sdw
Paramjeet Singh Kalsi
The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Transport, Home Department, Mumbai and others
B.R. Gavai
P.B. Varale
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
