Disposed

Lalsing S/O. Udaypalsing Thakur v. National Highway Authority of India, through Its Project Officer and Others

Bombay HC6 Sept 2017PIL/53/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner raised grievance that national highway road level fell below required minimum. Court directed parties to appear for joint verification and site measurements by Respondent No. 1 to examine the controversy before disposal. The PIL was disposed of after issuing directions for physical verification.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 to carry out necessary measurements to examine the grievance by a competent officer in the presence of all respondents within four months.

Lalsing S/O. Udaypalsing Thakur Vs National… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

0609pil53.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 53 OF 2015

¶5

(Lalsing s/o Udaypalsingh Thakur vs. National Highway Authority of India thr. its Project Officer & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,_____________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 06, 2017.

¶8

Heard Shri R.M. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.A. Kathane, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Nitin Lalwani, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶9

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed on 11.06.2015 by an individual on the basis of Inter Office Memo dated 06.12.2013, written by the Survey Engineer, Shri S.S. Bedi, to Team Leader of National Highway No. 6, Mauda. Its reading shows an observation that difference between the finished road level and Original Ground Level should be 1.690 meters. He has also given break up thereafter. His observation is, the said difference was 0.6 meters and, therefore, final road level is fallen by 1.09 meters.

¶10

The respondents are relying upon clause 4.2.1 to urge that this difference of 1.690 worked out in the letter is

0609pil53.15

incorrect.

A perusal of clause 4.2.1 reveals that finished road level has to be at least 0.6 meters above ground level. Sub-clause (ii) therein states that bottom of sub-grade should be generally one meter above High Flood level/ High Water table. If sub-clauses (i) and (ii) are read together, it shows total thickness above High Flood level/ High Water Table to be 1.6 meters. A perusal of sub-clause (ii) also shows that it may not be a standard requirement in all cases.

¶15

The petitioner personally has not verified these aspects. He has submitted a representation dated 12.01.2015, which is only on the basis of information gathered by said Survey Engineer.

¶16

As we find that some disputed questions arise and there is no clear material in this respect on record, an opportunity to the petitioner and verification by Respondent No. 1 in presence of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 can help in resolving the controversy. Roads appear to be in use for last more than four years and its continuous use may also have affected its thickness.

¶17

We, in this situation, direct the petitioner to contact the office of Respondent No. 1 on 03.10.2017 at 11.00 AM. Respondent No. 1 shall, through his competent officer, in presence of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, on a suitable

¶18

¶19

0609pil53.15

¶20

date, carry out necessary measurements to examine the grievance of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within next four months.

¶21

With these directions, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

*GS.

Lalsing S/O. Udaypalsing Thakur v. National Highway Authority of India, through Its Project Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalsing S/O. Udaypalsing Thakur v. National Highway Authority of India, through Its Project Officer 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

Maharashtra Kamgar Manch Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Milind S. Oka Vs the Union of India through the Secretary and Anr.

Vinay Balasaheb Ghule Vs Manjari Budruk Grampanchayat through Sarpanch and Ors.

Shri. Jitendra P. Maru Vs Administrator of Daman, Dadar and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Panshet Purgrast Samittee Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Maneesha Rote Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

Maruti Parshuram Shedge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Rural Development and Ors.

Smt. Maneesha Rote Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

M/S Ajanta Minerals, through Managing Partner, Shri. Rajendra Purushottam Tank, Nagpur Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour, Mumbai

Subhash S/O Ganpat Dandge Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai and Others

Pandurang Bhaurao Pawar Vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commi. Thr. Member Secretary, Amravati and Another

Madhukar Laxmanrao Pagrut Vs Union of India through Ministry of Agricultural and Cooperation, New Delhi and Others

Udaysing Narsing Hajari Vs Collecor, Nagpur and Others

Anil S/O Sharadchandra Mardikar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry of Rural Development and Water, Mumbai and Others