Disposed

Shri. Baban Jairam Randive, Chandrapur v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC17 Jan 2018PIL/9/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning non-compliant speed breakers on the Ballarpur road, the High Court directed respondents to replace contravention speed breakers with compliant ones within six months and allowed liberty to seek specification relaxations within four months for public safety.

What did the court decide?

Direction to remove non-IRC compliant speed breakers within six months; liberty to seek specification relaxation within four months.

Shri. Baban Jairam Randive, Chandrapur Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

1701pil9.16

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 9 OF 2016

¶5

(Shri Baban Jairam Randive vs. State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, Public Works Department & 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 & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. JANUARY 17, 2018.

¶8

Heard Shri V.N. Morande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.K. Pathan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 6, Shri K.N. Shukul, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner in public interest is to see that speed breakers erected contrary to IRC specifications be removed.

¶10

After hearing the respective counsel, we find substance in the contention that speed breakers erected contrary to IRC specifications cannot be permitted. However, Respondent No. 6 has given justification for erecting speed breakers with more height at particular points. The reason appears to be inability of IRC specifications speed breakers to slow down the vehicles.

¶11

We have perused the report submitted by the

¶12

¶13

1701pil9.16

¶14

Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer of PWD, Chandrapur, which is document No. 1 along with affidavit of respondent No. 6. Though, there is some dispute about contents or correctness of report, in Public Interest Litigation we are not willing to examine each speed breaker.

¶15

We are satisfied that peculiar situation at spots like one at Sr. Nos. 5, 15, 20, 22, 23 etc. in that report necessitated some deviation. This deviation definitely is in public interest. However, deviation even in public interest, if contrary to law, cannot be permitted. The authorities, therefore, have to take necessary alternate steps to reduce the speed of approaching vehicles by putting/ erecting barricades or then by other suitable measures. One of the other measure possible is to levy penalty/ fine at 10 times the normal penalty at such juncture/ points.

¶16

From arguments of the respondents, it appears that IRC specifications are not now sufficient to control the speed of the vehicles. It is open to the respondents to evolve other specifications in this respect including increase in height of speed breakers as per law.

¶17

We, therefore, direct the respondents to bring all speed breakers from Warora Naka to Bamni Square on Ballarpur road as per IRC specifications within next six months. We also grant them liberty to move competent authority for either relaxation from IRC specifications or

¶18

¶19

1701pil9.16

¶20

then for revision thereof. This exercise shall also be completed within next four months. If the grievance of the petitioner survives even thereafter, we grant him liberty to approach this Court again in the matter.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

*GS.

Shri. Baban Jairam Randive, Chandrapur v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Baban Jairam Randive, Chandrapur v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai 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

Aniket Satish Amberkar S/O. Satish M. Amberkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Throiugh Its Principal Secretary Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Aniket Satish Amberkar S/O. Satish M. Amberkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Throiugh Its Principal Secretary Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Chhaya Shyam Adsure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Shankar Kale Vs Rajaram Parasram Godse and Ors.

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Uttamrao Rasve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxmichand Salamatrai Sindhi (Mata) and Another Vs State of Maharashta, through Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai and 4 Others

Prof. Mahadeo S/O Govind Khade Vs Sitaram S/O Janardan Kunte, Principal Secretary Higher and Technical Education Dept. and Others

Suvarna Gautam Gawai Vs the Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola, Thr. Municipal Commissioner and Others

Ratnadip Nandanvan Vyayamshala Thr. New Nandanvan Thr. Secretary Shankar J Gaidhane Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Urban Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the Union of India, Thr.Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Delhi, Ors.

Shrikant S/O. Gajanrao Aaglave Vs State of Maha., Thr Commissionerate of Animal Husbandary, Maha. State, Aundh, Pune and Others