CourtCase/PIL 17-2013 Anil Sukhdev Bonde Vs. NHAI

44 Pages·2013·2.81 MB·English

."I1(tfiY£l (I(\Y£I (I\ilql~i JrrRiCh(OI
:
~/iticm 0712-2249316
Tel/Fax [phone]
(~4~Cl6'1 afu' ~1\JItwf~, 'qffif tRCIiR)
National Highways Authority of India t-~/Email: [email protected]
(Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Govt. of India)

q.q;y.~. : ~W.2, !lJ~ 314,i!ilre<i., We w. 159, ~1%M ifq, ~ ';fIR, ~-440 033

P.I.U. : Bunglow No.2, Shubhankar Apartments, Plot No. 159, Ambazari Hill Top, Ram Nagar, Nagpur440 033
NIIAIIPIU/NAG/PII. no 17/20 13/6/;]2'- Date: 05.03.2012
Adv. Kathane
Ramdaspeth. Nagpur
Sub:- PIL-!7/2013, Ani! Sukhdeo Bonde Vs Nationaillighways Authority orIndia.
* * *
Sir,
This office is in receipt of above referred petition. You are requested to represent the
matter in the Bombay High Court. Nagpur Bench on behalf of National Highways Authority
of India.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
Ene! :- Copy of Petition
(M. Chandrashekhar)
GM(T), Project Director
PIU- Nagpur
!!M'Mli : vft-5, ~ 6, ~-10, ID'WT, ~~ - 110075
Head Office: G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi -110075
)t,/.u;
~,
To ~~"i§.c;ol!l1
~83~
GP'~-J-2953-AHCB-5-201;'2.00,{/OOn in.!,.di~3fta~p.liance.
PA4' [SpL-H.C., A.S.,
-"""',;,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Notice to R.No~.3&4
APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION, R'able on 26/9'!..l2012..:"
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
.High Court of Bombcj\ atWagpu
~\Q"".AP~~ -OF-e90.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.17of 2013.
IN
WRIT PETITION No. OF 20
(Un~~iCles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Dr. Anil Sukhdev Bonde.
PETITIONER;
Through Advocate Mr. R.Itl. Allir r ao•• X.
Versus
State of Mah.Through its Secretary,Ministry of Road,and Others.
--Respondents,
To, .
~tiona1
Highways authority of India through. its' project Direct'

of India, Bungalow No.2, Shubamkar Apartment, Plot NO.159,

Amravati HillTop Ramnagar~Nagpur-44001O. .

. R\) I.R.B. Infrastructure developers Ltd. Through its Managing Direl')r,
B-301 Universal Business Park,Behind Kamani oil Mill,
~
Chandivali easte,Andheri East,Mumbai-400072.
a~~ition
W,hereas, the Petitioner abovenamed has presented to this Court under Artic/es 226 ana
227/Artl'C~~!'B"rem.t\1tl1tm\'n~m~""ofthe Constituti~n of !ndia p~aying for reliefs as stated in the accompanying copy
of the Petition, a,nd w,hereas the same has been registered In thiS Court as Special Civil Application. and this Court.
has on th~ 13_ 02 2013 day of . 20 , ordered Rule
~ . M\1\~ ~ . '",\- ~.\lP'~o.
. .
~&)v ~\~~~J~'- <\7 ~"f' ~ /'

--"
..
~.•..."". '
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY: BENCH AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. PIJ l:t OF 2013.
PETITIONER Dr. Anil Sukhdev Bonde.
Versus
RESPONDENTS: State of Maharashtra,
And others.
INDEX
Sr. Annex. Particulars Date Pages'
Nos.
Ol. -­ - Synopsis. 04.02.13.
~-rL
02. --­ Petition under 04.02.13.
Articles 226 & .11ZB :
227 of the ..,,
Constitution of : ,
.!,
,
India. !
i
,
03. --­ List of 04.02.13. I
-l'4
.14
Annexures.
I
,I
04. P/l. Copy of ,
I;; ' ., i
L.A. Case ,-' ~/c ,
-,'
No.21 /LAQ-47 /
!
I
2008-09.
I
!
05. P/2. Copy of 18.06.12.
:3]
,.
prqposed map.
06. P/3.. Copy of
')
/3~,
representation.
07. P/4. Copy of
--;,-7
"j
relevant <k
'.;"" -,-",'
pamphlet.
i
08. P/5. Copy of 311 i
newspaper
cutting.
09. P/6. Copy of
35
newspaper
cutting.
10. P/7. Copy of letter
3t
to the Hon'ble
Chief Mirtister.
ll. P/B. Copy of letter 22.08.12.
':5+

from Shri. Data
Meghe7 M.P.
,
12. P/9. Copy of letter 21.08.12.
to Shri. C.P.
2·/'
.- ' ,.7, :
Joshi7 Ministry '--"'
of Road
I
Transport and
i
Highways7
Govt. of India.
NAG PUR :

DATE:04.02.20l3. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER.•

(R.M. Ahirrao), Adv.",: ..
.': '.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT: BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

P.LL. NO.
PETITIONER,
Dr. Anil Sukhdev Bonde
VERSUS
RESPONDENT State of Maharashtra and ,others'
SYNOPSIS
Date Events.
That the petitioner is Member of ,legislative'
,
Assembly of the state of Maharashtra from Morshi
I
Constitency Dist. Amravati.
By Way. of the instant petition, the petitioner is
i
challenging the action on the part of the State!
i
Govt. authority in authorizing the Respondent No.
i
4 to recover is tender amount ,through Public \
I
under the head of toll tax.
It is submitted that the grievance and strong
disagreement regarding prop~sed Toll Plaza
being permitted at Mouje Degaon,: Gat No. 30,
having Chainage No. 142/800 on National
Highway No.6, Nandgaon Peth to Amravati. The
Public at large of the vicinity have agitedtheir
disagreement in proposed toll place on the above
referred site, have demonstrated in details.
That,' it is further ,submitted that, a ring road is
attached to toll plaza, running right from Walgaon
till toll plaza most of the vehicles use this road to
go directly to Walgaon instead of going through
Amravati City. Moreover people traveling right
from Daryapur, Parawada. Achalpur and Chandur
Bazar to Morshi and Warud and the said Road,
approaching in Madhya Pradesh will use the four
lane just for 1-5 kms. From the ring Road of
Amravati and for that journey they will have to
pay. On the contrary those who are using the four.
lane from Telegaon to Diversion Road towards
Morshi not less than 40 Kms. They need not pay
any singular pie. It is further' submitted that,
moreover people coming from MorshiWarud and
going to Amravati will use just 3.7 Ktns. Four lane
whereas people moving to Walgaon will have to .
pay just for using 1.3 kms. Of four lane, these
discrepancies and discrimination :is absolutely
illegal, harsh, purvers arbitrary against the policy i
of law of equity.
Thus it is necessary to change the si.te of
,
proposed toll plaza at the site proposed in the
petition.
GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PETITION
Grounds in Para NO.8 to 11
CITATION
Crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer on reply at the
time of hearing.
ACT & RULES
Constitution of India.
NAGPUR
TIT10NER
DATED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BEANCH AT NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. I~
iJIL· /J3
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
PETITIONER:- Dr. Ani! Sukhdev Bonde
Aged about 52 years,
Occupation - Medical Practitioner
RIo. Dande Plot, Rajapeth
Amravati Tq. & Distt. Amravati
...Versus...
RESPONDENT:- 1) State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary Ministry of Ro;<'
Transport and Highways, Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) Union of India through its secretary minist, .
of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.
3) National Highways authority
Of India through its project Director of India
Bungalow No.2, Shubamkar Apartment, Plo~
No. 159, Amravati HillTop Ramnagar, Nagpur ­
440010
.i~t~·~\ 4) I.R.B. Infrastructure developers ltd. Througr
. t.\ "its Managing Director, B-301 Universal Business
;': .{i'.~, :, ".!~:', ": ~~
\ ..
" /:; Park, Behind Kamani Oil Mill, Chandivali easte,
"
Andheri East, Mumbai - 400072
Page 1 of 13
',:::..
~.', ~ -, ( :. 'f
c/.L~;, l'~\i~~
10
OF YOUR PETITIONERS MOST HUMBLY SHEWTH:

(1) That the petitioner is citizen of India and is residing at his respective address'
engaged in the lawful occupation. That the petitioner is Doctor by profes:
and he is also presently Member of Legislative Assembly of the State
Maharashtra from Morshi Constituency Distt. Amravati. That the petitionee
also one of the beneficiaries of the schemes undertaken by the State for t,
benefit of the people at large. The petitioner as a citizen of India has every rir
and interest to keep a vigilant eye on the state machinery and agencies sc
to prevent wastage of money and resources either by the acts of omissior .­
commission or sheer negligence. The case in hand is a glaring case and is
example, which demonstrates as to how abusing the powers and authority {
the benefit of particular person of their choice, the officials of the responder~;
have tilted the facts and thereby engaged the Respondent No.4":'"
construction of four lane highway No.6, Talegaon to Amravati and Responden~
No.4 is also authorized to recover their tender amount through public under
the head "Toll Tax". It is submitted that because of this illegality ard
unwarranted authority and action on the part of respondents the public at large
sustained huge losses and also exposed the valuable properties belonging
7)
the State for the benefit. of public too serious threat. Moreover the proposed
toll center cause heavy loss to the public residing near vicinity who will not using
the said proposed highway for a kilometer not more than 2 toS kms. will be
.~" -"'r.~'~ ::~r"
Page 2 of 13
'.
constrained to pay toll unnecessarily and on the contrary who will use the ",~d
highway four lane for commercial purpose they will not have to pay single'
for using the said four lane, thus it is pure discrimination amongst the peopl':
the part of respondents. Hence, in the capacity of public interest and being:
and parcel of the public at large, the petitioner would like to demonstrate all t
illegalities committed by the respondents with hand in gloves causing
apparent loss, while erecting toll plaza on the projected spot. The respond'
have not considered the important aspect and factual matrix of inconveni!=,c .
and hidden loss the society at large thus by way of this petition being a citize;' ,j
India, by putting all the facts of the case in the interest of public before"­
Hon'ble Court and hence, the petitioner may be allowed to file the prest""'t
petition in the capacity of public interest litigation on the facts and gro' "i
mentioned hereinafter:
FACTS AND GROUND OF THE CASE
(2) That in discharge of its sovereign duties to cater the convenience, needs of t~f>
citizens of India particularly within the belt of 10 to 15 kms approximately, t"'e
r
respondent no 2 and 3 have undertaken work of construction of NH 6 from rn
104/563 to Km 166/725 section
(3) That, the office of the Respondent No 1 has acquired the land under the
provisions of National Highways Act 1956, to section of National Highway No. 6
from Km 104.563 to 166.725 km, Talegaon to Amravati, as per Govt. of India
Gazette Notification No. S. O. 2089 dated 22/08/2008, S. O. 808-E datd
: •.•. i.~.
09.04.2010 and S. O. 1933-E dated 05.08.2010. That the copy of LA. Case r;],
LAC 21/LAQ 47/2008-09, village Degaon Tahshil Amravati Distt. Amravati, award
'", .,: of dated 29.03.2011 is annexe? herewith at Annexure "P!l"
(4) It is submitted that, the grievance and strong disagreement regarding proposed
Toll Plaza being permitted at Mouje Degaon, Gat No. 3D, having Chainage no.
Page 30f13
142/800 on National Highway No.6, Nandgaon Peth to Amravati. The publir,t
large of the vicinity have agaited their disagreement in proposed toll plaza .'
the above referred site, have demonstrated in details.
(5) It is submitted that, Farmers, villages, serviceman and institutional persons fr:.·
Amravati, Morshi, Nandgaon, Borgaon etc. have their fields, farms, serv:
places, hospitals and Educational Institutions about just five kms nearer to tr
proposed toll plaza and up to 20 to 25 kms. In multiple directions, so they
have to pay unwarranted toll daily for their day to day routine work.
(6) -rhat, it is further submitted that the villages named Nandgaon Peth, Rahatgac ,
Borgaon are very just within a five kms. from the proposed toll plaza, so ever.'
medical emergency being traveling to Amravati in other than ambulance vehic
p
will have to wait and pay for it. This unnecessary exercise will cause the peop'e
at large therefore, it is necessary to change the place of toll plaza at propos~~ j
place advice by the petitioner, after taking into consideration to the aspect [ f
losses and discrimination to the people at large. The petitioner would like "
place on record the proposed map in respect of change of place of the toll tc',
plaza, so that, it will be easier to find out the exact location of the proposed
spot. The copy of proposed map dated 18.6.2012 is filed herewith at Annexure­
P-2.
(7) That, it is submitted that, at the very outset the petitioner would like to subm't
to this Hon'ble Court that, the petitioner is not at all against the recovery of toil
and the installation of toll plaza but his grievance is limited to the extent that.
{i ,...... .
the place of proposed toll tax should be changed so that it will not cause ar'
,
,
inconvenience and losses to the respondents on the contrary it will helpful ii'
avoiding the propose losses ana discrimination and inconvenience to the public
at large.
Page 40f13