AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A.B.Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M.A.Choudhury on behalf of the petitioners, and also Mr. K.P.Bhattacharjee,
learned State counsel on behalf of the State respondents.
The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
Petitioners are working in the various fields of the society and their concern area of operation is situated near by the old National Highway No.
40, now, new National Highway No. 6 starting from Jorabat in the Assam - Meghalaya Border falling in the part of Assam and all depend upon
the new National Highway No. 6 starting from Jorabat for their transportation etc. In the year 2012-2013 when the construction work of the
National Highway No. 40 (now new National Highway No. 6) was going on then the People of the said locality including the Petitioners felt the
necessity of a median cut near the JAGAT GURU SHIRDI SAI BABA MANDIR, 14th Mile as general people as well as Emergency service
vehicles were required to travel many miles to cross the National Highway hence the Petitioners along with some eminent persons of that locality
approached the Respondent No. 5 for construction median cut at National Highway near to Chainage No. 4.680 near the Shirdi Sai Baba Mandir.
Due to constant demand for median cut by the people the Respondent No. 5 has forwarded the request of the Petitioners and others to the
National Highways Authorities and respecting the genuine demand the Respondent National Highways Authority has made a median cut situated at
old National Highway No. 40. Now, new National Highway No. 6 starting from Jorabat increasing change 4 + 650 kilometers and ending of
Median Cut at increasing change 4 + 680 kilometers having width of 30 meters. In the year 2016 the Respondent No. 7 and his subordinate
officers as per direction of Respondent No. 5 & 6 started putting some barricades temporarily at the said median cut and occasionally stopped the
flow of traffic which was passing through the said median cut. Due to this illegal act of the Respondent Authorities, not only the Petitioners are
suffering but also the people of the said locality is also suffering a lot due to obstruction of the said median cut as during emergencies, emergency
vehicles like Fire Brigade vehicles, Ambulances etc. took more time than earlier. To end the sufferings, the petitioners along with some other
organizations and people from the said locality have submitted representations before the Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 5, respondent No.
6 and Respondent No. 7 on 06.10.2016 for redressal of their grievances by opening the said median cut by removing the temporary barricades
but till date no action has been taken by any of the said Respondents to redress the grievances of the Petitioners. Further the Petitioners came to
know that the Respondents are proposing to close the said median cut permanently which will cause great inconvenience to the Petitioners and
they will suffer a lot. Hence, the Petitioners have approached this temple of justice for redressal of their grievances by filing this writ petition.
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that due to a temporary barricades set up at National Highway No. 6, trucks carrying coal as
well as the general public are facing difficulties and inconvenience, so an order may be passed to remove the temporary barricades.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that this barricade is a temporary arrangement so as to check that no trucks can pass through
or escape without paying the requisite taxes and he vehemently argued that by placing the barricades, there is no inconvenience caused to the
public.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I
could not satisfy myself that inconvenience is caused by placing such temporary barricades to check the truckers who try to avoid taxes. Learned
Sr. counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust vrs B.S.
Muddappa. I am of the opinion that the said judgment is not applicable in this case. The barricades standing thereon at present do not appear to be
causing any inconvenience at all to the general public.
It is always the greater interest of the public to be considered rather than that of some private individual. Moreover, if the trucks avoid to pay the
taxes, Government is at liberty to take necessary steps to check such activities. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this case. The Government
authority will be in a better position to check the public revenue. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.