This public interest litigation challenged the erection of a unipole along National Highway 17-B near Dabolim Airport without alleged sanctions. The Court noted existing permissions and rejected the petition as no longer tenable.
The Writ Petition stands rejected.
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.
1
PILWP No.6/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 6 OF 2016
SHRI. VASANT S. NAIK.
... Petitioner
Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 8 ORS.
... Respondents
Mr. B.P. Sardessai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Zeller D'Souza, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Coram:- F. M. REIS & K. L. WADANE, JJ.
Date:- 22nd March, 2016
ORAL ORDER : (Per F.M. REIS, J.)
Heard Mr. B.P. Sardessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Rodrigues, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3, Mr. Zeller D'Souza, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 and Mr. C.A. Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.8.
2
PILWP No.6/2016
are to be suspended and the land has to be restored to its original condition.
3
PILWP No.6/2016
4
PILWP No.6/2016
has no powers to take any action as according to him such permissions, if any, have already been granted by the respondent no.5. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the petition be rejected.
Section 38 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 reads thus:
38. Construction on highway land-
5
PILWP No.6/2016
occupied, method of execution of work, period of construction and method of restoration of such part of the Highway.
Provided that while giving such permission, the Highway Administration may impose such conditions as it may deem fit to protect-
i. the Highway from damage; and
ii. the traffic on the Highway from obstruction,
and may also impose such fees and other charges as may be prescribed on the person to whom such permission is given in respect of any land forming part of the Highway, occupied or applied to the proposed work or construction under permission and also impose on such person the expenditure, if any, incurred by the Highway Administration for repairing any damage caused to the Highway by laying or shifting of any structure, article or equipment under the permission.
6
PILWP No.6/2016
of such land, shall be recovered from such person in accordance with the provisions contained in section 27 as if such expenses, additional charges and fine were the expenses, additional charges and fine recoverable under that section.
Taking note of the said provisions it cannot be disputed that the respondent no.5 which is stated to be the Highway Administration has powers to issue permissions to erect such unipole along the highway land subject to the conditions and meeting the requirements specified therein.
7
PILWP No.6/2016
petitioner, if so advised, is entitled to raise such grievance before an appropriate forum. But however, as the permission has been produced on record, we find that the question of entertaining the Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition would not at all be justified. No doubt, the petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to law if they are so entitled on its own merits to challenge the permission granted to the respondent no.8.
K. L. WADANE, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether erection of unipole without setback requires suspension of activities.
Whether lack of prior information by authorities justifies suspension of activities.
Whether High Court needs to examine correctness of permit granted by National Highway Authorities.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHRI. VASANT S. NAIK
STATE OF GOA
F. M. REIS
K. L. WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
