Dismissed

Ramdas Baliram Gavate v. the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways through Its Secretary New Delhi and Others

Bombay HC8 Aug 2017WP/9765/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the refusal to issue directions for converting a National Highway into a municipal road. The Court rejected the petitions, holding that the policy of total prohibition on liquor sale under Directive Principles prevents exceptions facilitating such conversions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for directions to convert the National Highway into a municipal road were rejected.

Ramdas Baliram Gavate Vs the Ministry… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

{1}

¶2

wp6527.17.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6527 OF 2017

¶5

Ashok s/o Baliram Sangewar & another Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and others Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondents / State. Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no. 1.

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 9765 OF 2017

¶11

Ramdas Baliram Gavate Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and others Respondents

¶14

Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondents / State. Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no. 1.

¶15

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶16

S.M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATE : 8^th AUGUST, 2017

¶17

PER COURT:

¶18

Petitioners are praying for issuance of directions to respondents to decide the representation tendered by them for conversion of National Highway into municipal road in view of resolution adopted by the Municipal Council.

¶19

wp6527.17.odt

¶20

{2}

¶21

It is contended that a decision has been taken to provide for a bye paws road to the National Highway which would be located 2 to 3 kms. away from the city. It is further contended that the bye pass provided on the National Highway would be construed as part of the National Highway and the existing road passing through the city shall have to be considered as municipal road.

¶22

Petitioners, in order to escape from the directions issued by the Supreme Court imposing restriction for operating the liquor shops within the periphery of 500 mtrs. from the State and National Highway, have come forward to make such a request. It must be borne in mind that the policy of the State as declared under the directive principles of the State policy is of total prohibition whereas sale of liquor is regulated by relevant legislation operated in different States which would be an exception to the Directive Principles of the State. Any directive facilitating exception to the National policy as in the instant matter need not be issued in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would however, be open for the petitioners to avail of the remedies available in law and persue the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievance.

¶23

For the reasons recorded above, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petitions stand rejected.

¶24

( S.M. GAVHANE ) ( R.M.BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

dyb

Ramdas Baliram Gavate v. the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways through Its Secretary New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas Baliram Gavate v. the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways through Its Secretary New Delhi 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

Sunil Sambhaji Patil and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Ayub Hamja Shaikh Vs the Collector Latur

Basweshwar Amarendra Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sominath Trimbak Rahane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashti Taluka Milk Produce and Supply Co. Operative Society through It Managing Director M L Dhanawad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Madhavrao Sambhaji Birajdar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others