Disposed

Afsar Nawaboddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Engineer and Others

Bombay HC23 Feb 2024PIL/7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL seeking creation of U-turns and openings in dividers on National Highway No. 361 through Ausa town, holding that such engineering decisions are best left to the authorities and allowing such modifications poses safety risks. The court also noted doubts regarding the petitioner's bonafides.

What the court decided

AI extract

Afsar Nawaboddin Shaikh Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

pil7.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 7 OF 2024

¶5

Dr. Afsar Nawaboddin Shaikh .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H., Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D. R. Kale, GP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 23^rd FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

After perusing the pleadings in the petition and the

¶14

documents in the paper book, we are not convinced about the bonafides of the Petitioner. Several documents are placed on record to indicate the political strength of the Petitioner and his contacts. Print outs from social media are also placed on record.

¶15

The Petitioner has mentioned in paragraph No. II as regards the various elections contested by the Petitioner and the various capacities in which he has performed roles as an elected representative.

¶16

pil7.24.odt

¶17

National Highway No. 361 is at issue in this Petition. At several places, the Petitioner prays for U-turns to be created on the National highway. He prays for the old Shiv Rasta to be developed considering the old map of the Ausa town. A further prayer is made that numerous dividers need to be opened and at various locations the residents should be allowed to cross over from the National Highway through such dividers.

¶18

In Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the Petitioner has averred as under :-

¶19

3. The petitioner states that, the resident of Ausa Town again submitted identical letter dated 12.12.2023 and submitted that, the old shiv-rasta shown in old map of Ausa are passing beneath High Way and since dividers are constructed, public who resides in vicinity and who desires to cross the road cannot do the same unless they travel till 1 or 2 KM crossing road. It is pertinent to note that, as per old map, there is shiv rasta shown, even at such places where shiv rasta is is shown, dividers are kept closed. Therefore dividers needed to be opened at several points such as Old Sarola Road, Old Karanjgaon Road, Old Selu Road etc. These roads are though shown on old Ausa town map, however, the National High Way authority did not considered the same while constructing dividers and ha not opened dividers at aforesaid points.

¶20

¶21

pil7.24.odt

¶22

Hereto annexed and marked at Exhibit – “C+ is the copy of communication dated 12.12.2023.

¶23

4. The Petitioner state that, the petitioner also requested to the Respondent no. 3 for opening of dividers at close distance of High Way, so long the High Way passes through Ausa town. This will reduce time and will also save fuel which is spending for crossing the road. It is further submitted that, as the residential area is from both side of the High Way, it is necessary to grant smooth access to the resident of Ausa town, for crossing the road. As for day to day work, citizens are required to cross road for visiting market, for children to go to school, for going to hospital etc. The petitioner also requested for installation of traffic signal facility for smooth passage of the traffic and for reducing the numbers of accident. Instead of that they have installed single light of signal. Petitioner also requested for installation of Speed Breakers, as the High way is passing through residential locality. Hereto annexed and marked at EXHIBIT ‘D” is the copy of communication dated 14.12.2023 submitted by petitioner to Respondent No. 3 and also copy of exact location map of new opening of dividers so also photographs.

¶24

5. The petitioner states that, by one more letter dated 15.12.2023, the resident of Ausa Town re-iterated the earlier request made to Respondent no. 3. By the said letter, Respondent No. 3 was again requested to prove U-

¶25

pil7.24.odt

¶26

turn facility by opening dividers each at 1 KM distance. Hereto annexed and marked at EXHIBIT “E” is the copy of communication dated 15.12.2023.

¶27

Needless to state, matters pertaining to Road

¶28

developmental engineering and the making of National Highways, are best left to the wisdom of the authorities concerned who have the knowledge and expertise of preparing specific designs for such National Highways. If the residents start demanding numerous gaps in the dividers and U-turns at several places on a National Highway, less said the better. If allowed, this is bound to lead to accidents and risk human lives. Reliance on social media and the publicity done by the Petitioner, which is evident from the photographs placed on record, do not indicate bonafides of the Petitioner, so as to entertain this PIL.

¶29

So also, a petition regarding a Flyover in Ausa town is pending in this Court, wherein this Court is considering feasibility of flyovers.

¶30

pil7.24.odt

¶31

At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner prays that the Petitioner be granted the liberty to request appropriate authorities for service roads.

¶32

7. The PIL Petition is disposed off.

¶33

( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

dyb

Afsar Nawaboddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Afsar Nawaboddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Indrakumar Tiwari vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Girish Ganpatrao Shriwadkar and Ors. Vs Cidco Limited and Ors.

K.P.Purushothaman Nair vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Sharad Baliram Patil Vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Mahesh Harishchandra Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Manjula Biswas vs the Union of India

Smt. Homai Firdous Khergamvala and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Tourism and Cultural Affairas and Ors.

Lata Santosh Bide and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Karmayogi Ankushrao Tope Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Government of India through the Secretary and Others

Machindra Maruti Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others vs Pralhad Gopal Falak and Others

Ashok Ramniwas Bora Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Sitaram Bhosale and Another Vs Reserve Bank of India through Its Manager and Another