Madhya Pradesh High Court To NHAI
While considering a Petition of Advocates relating to the maintenance of the national highway, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the NHAI to regularly monitor the work of completion of the service road near the Palda Bridge and also replace traffic signs when needed.
The petitioners, law students (now advocates), had approached the Court by way of Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking multiple directions to the respondents to fix the proper road signs on the road, remove the trucks parked on both sides of the road at Palda Bridge and remove speed breakers. The petitioners also sought the constitution of a Committee for the maintenance of the road and a direction to NHAI to take responsibility for any accident which may happen in future because of the poor maintenance of the national highways.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi ordered, “Let this construction/ upgradation of service roads be completed on a priority basis along with the ongoing construction work of the flyovers. The respondents/ NHAI are directed to regularly monitor the work of completion of the service road and thereafter their maintenance and submit the report to this court after 30 days from the date of this order.”
Advocate Navneet Kishore Verma represented the Petitioner while Dy. Solicitor General Romesh Dave represented the respondent/ Union of India.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the concern of the petitioners about the maintenance of the national highway was in the public interest. “The NHAI is responsible for the maintenance of all the national highways across the country. So far as the congestion and blockage of free movement of traffic are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the NHAI rightly submitted that it can happen any time on any national highway due to various reasons. No measures can be taken in advance”, it said while also adding, “A detailed traffic management plan is crucial for safe and smooth traffic flow during the construction of flyovers, which includes the diversion of traffic on the national highway.”
The Bench also suggested that before starting the construction of the flyover, good quality service roads on this highway ought to have been constructed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, to avoid inconvenience to the travelers and passengers, etc., as well as free movement of Ambulance, Police Vehicles and Fire Brigade in case of emergency. On a perusal of the photographs on record, it was noticed that the respondent Ministry is upgrading the service roads.
As far as the prayer of removal of speed breakers on this national highway was concerned, the Bench stated that these were not speed breakers but they were rumble strips constructed on a road in order to avoid accidents on the highways. “The rumbles are necessary to control the speeds of heavy vehicles; therefore, the NHAI, as well as the local administration, is the competent authority to decide the place where the rumbles are constructed. This Court cannot direct the removal as well as the shifting of these rumbles”, it noted.
The Bench also ordered, “So far as the traffic signs are concerned, it is correct that they are liable to be put at the appropriate places as per the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules, and their regular replacement is also necessary from time to time. Let these traffic signs be properly monitored and, if required, be replaced from time to time.”
With such observations and orders, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Tanishq Patel v. National Highway Authority of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND: 19535)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Navneet Kishore Verma
Respondents: DY. Solicitor General Romesh Dave, Advocates Pankaj Chandra Bagadiya, Apsingh, Shagufta Rehman, Avinash Kushwaha, Dy. AG Sudeep Bhargava, Advocates Akshat Pahadia, Nandini Sharma, Kushagra Jain