Dismissed

Tukaram Hari Pawar and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC25 Jul 2019WP/962/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-line order dismissed a writ petition regarding an alleged improper change in alignment for widening National Highway No. 361. The court dismissed the challenge, noting a lack of malafides and the failure of petitioners to raise objections at the relevant time.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition, along with connected civil applications, dismissed without costs.

Tukaram Hari Pawar and Others Vs the Union of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

3 WRIT PETITION NO.962 OF 2018

¶4

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5548/2019
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 962/2018

¶5

WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.23054/2019
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 962/2018

¶7

TUKARAM HARI PAWAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶8

...

¶9

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Patil Prakashsing B.
AGP for Respondents 4 to 6: Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. D.S. Manorkar
Advocate for respondents 1 and 3: Mr. Ravi R. Bangar
Advocate for Intervenor: Ms. Sharda P. Chate

¶10

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
 DATE:25th July, 2019

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate for the

¶13

petitioners submits that on 20.05.2016, notification was

¶14

published in the Gazette of India for widening of
National Highway No.361 going through village Malakoli.
Thereafter, tender notice was issued. On 14.11.2017,
previous plan was changed. The project cost was also
increased by 200 crores. Previous plan was changed under
the political pressure. Because of the change in the
alignment, there would be loss to the public exchequer.
Wrong Gat numbers are also mentioned in the notification.

¶15

1/3

¶16

¶17

Gat Numbers that are not in existence also found place in
the notification. Without survey and without measurement,
notification is published by the respondents.

¶18

Mr. Manorkar, learned Advocate for the Highway Authority submits that considering the resolution passed by the Grampanchayat Sabha and agitations, the plan was modified and in the modified notification, out of 16 petitioners, lands of 12 petitioners are not affected and lands of only 4 petitioners are affected. The same is after taking advice from the experts.

¶19

Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate submits that

¶20

Gramsevak had given a letter to the petitioners stating
that no such resolution has been passed by the
Grapanchayat. To prepare alignment is the job of experts.

¶21

The experts would decide the nature of alignment. This
Court would only interfere if it is a case of malafide.

¶22

Out of 16 petitioners, lands of 12 petitioners are

¶23

not affected. Earlier notification was issued under

¶24

section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, inviting
objections to the changed plan. It appears that at the

¶25

relevant time objections were not raised with regard to
the changed plan and thereafter notification has been

¶26

¶27

issued under Section 3(D) of the National Highways At. The
petitioners ought to have raised objection to the
notification under section 3(A) at the appropriate time.

¶28

Alignments are made considering the stretch of the road and considering the actual area to be acquired. In such case, unless malafides are shown, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter. In the absence of any malafides and no objection raised by the petitioners

¶29

at the relevant time, it is not possible to accede with
the case of the petitioners.

¶30

In the light of above, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

In view of disposal of the Writ petition, Civil applications also stands disposed of.

¶32

(MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶33

JPC

¶34

3/3

Tukaram Hari Pawar and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukaram Hari Pawar and Others v. the Union of India 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

Dagadu Gahininath Gholve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Damu Pawala Randive and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Maroti Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandip Kaduba Dandge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Laxman Dighe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Vishnu Kalamkar Vs the Union of India and Others