1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Aplication No. 5249 of 2006 IN Writ Petition No. 4304 of 2002 [Digambar S. Joshi Vs. The Commr. Of Police, Ngp. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Applicants-respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Adv., for petitioner. Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv., for respondent no.11. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2009. 1. Respondent no.1 has taken out this application for relaxing the conditions imposed by order dated 27th November, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 4304 of 2002. The application is pending for last about three years. 2. In the Affidavit filed on record on 7th May, 2004 in the Writ Petition, the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra has stated that construction of Railway under Bridge [RuB] at Narendra Nagar using “Push Box Method” was the quickest and most effective solution to the problem in question, and would provide a substantial relief to citizens in the shortest time frame. In Paragraph 7, the said Officer has stated that a new road has been proposed 2 linking the Ring Road to the National Highway and the Wardha Road, and the Govt. intended to develop that D.P. Road in future, so as to provide an alternative channel for movement of heavy traffic and thereby completely solve the problem of traffic at Narendra Nagar RuB. 3. The conditions were imposed after this affidavit, and now after completion of construction of the Narendra Nagar RuB, the relaxation is being sought. 4. Certain charts are placed before us for consideration, pointing out the number of accidents which have taken place on relevant roads in the vicinity from 2001 onwards upto 31st May, 2008. The charts also disclose the number of injured in such accidents and also fatalities. The charts are filed on record to show that after construction of RuB, the frequency of accidents has decreased and, therefore, conditions need to be relaxed. The other problems faced in other parts of the City because of paving of additional traffic from that part are also being pointed out. 5. The charts, however, cannot be read to mean that the frequency of accidents has come down because of construction of RuB, or because of measures taken by the Department. The charts at places show that in subsequent years, there were more accidents and hence no definite answer in relation to the frequency of accidents can be given on the basis of said material. 6. In order dated 18th July, 2008, this Court has found that Intervenor No.3 – Sanjay 3 Patrikar was seeking appropriate directions against respondent no.4, and though at that time, it was tried to show that Civil Application No. 4985 of 2008 filed by him had no prayer for modification or relaxation as sought by the Govt., we found that both the issues were inter-related and, therefore, both the aspects were directed to be considered together. 7. On 29th August, 2008, after perusal of reply-affidavit filed by Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, it was noticed that the land for developing the road, which formed subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 3355 of 2004, was not made available and the Standing Counsel appearing for Nagpur Municipal Corporation, upon instructions from Estate Officer, made a statement that the land would be made available and that grievance would not survive after 2nd September, 2008. 8. Now, it is pointed out to us that the land is actually handed over and the respondent no.6 – Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation has, in his affidavit dated 24th July, 2008, stated that after physical possession of land was received, work would be over within twenty-four months of actual commencement. Adv. Mr. R.P. Joshi for the original petitioner states that the work has actually begun. 9. In view of the statement made by Municipal Corporation that the land was to be made available to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, and the fact that the 4 road suggesting as necessary for development by Chief Secretary for grant of complete relief in the matter is already being constructed, we find that the relaxation of conditions, at this stage, is unwarranted. 10. Merely by relying upon the charts produced and the statistics mentioned therein, we are not in a position to hold that the relief, as contemplated, has been provided. Construction of road as suggested in affidavit of Chief Secretary is must for completely solving the problems. No case is being made out for grant of relaxation. Application is, therefore, rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau| 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Aplication No. 4985 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No. 4304 of 2002 [Digambar S. Joshi Vs. The Commr. Of Police, Ngp. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.D. Samel, Adv., for the applicant- Original Intervener No.3 Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Applicants-respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Adv., for petitioner. Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv., for respondent no.11. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2009. In view of the order passed today by this Court on Civil Application No. 5249 of 2006, no separate order is necessary. As such, the application is disposed of. 6 Judge Judge |Hedau| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No.2997 of 2007 IN Writ Petition No. 4304 of 2002 [Digambar S. Joshi Vs. The Commr. Of Police, Ngp. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Applicant-respondent no. 9. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Adv., for petitioner. Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv., for respondent no.11. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2009. In view of the order passed today by this Court on Civil Application No. 5249 of 2006, no separate order is necessary. As such, the application is disposed of. Judge Judge 7 |Hedau| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No.2938 of 2007 IN Writ Petition No. 4304 of 2002 [Digambar S. Joshi Vs. The Commr. Of Police, Ngp. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.A. Kalbande, Adv., for Applicant [absent]. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Applicant-respondent no. 9. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Adv., for petitioner. Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv., for respondent no.11. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2009. In view of the order passed today by this Court on Civil Application No. 5249 of 2006, no separate order is necessary. As such, the application is disposed of. 8 Judge Judge |Hedau| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No.6036 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No. 4304 of 2002 [Digambar S. Joshi Vs. The Commr. Of Police, Ngp. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.D. Samel, Adv., for the applicant – Original Intervener No.3. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Applicant-respondent no. 9. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Adv., for petitioner. Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv., for respondent no.11. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2009. In view of the order passed today by this Court on Civil Application No. 5249 of 2006, no separate order is necessary. As such, the application is disposed of. Judge Judge 9 |Hedau|