C.R. No.5636 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5636 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 M/s Deserve Media, Kurukshetra ……Petitioner VERSUS M.C. Pehowa and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present petition is filed invoking jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 26.8.2009 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Pehowa and order dated 9.9.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, thereby application for ad-interim injunction filed by the plaintiff/peti- tioner was rejected. 3. In brief, the plaintiff/petitioner had filed civil suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction saying respondents/defendants C.R. No.5636 of 2009 (O&M) -2- have auctioned the right to install kiosk and unipal to the petitioner in the area of Municipal Committee, Pehowa for two years i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement petitioner has paid the amount/fee to respondent No.1/defendant; Now all of a sudden, defendant No.2/respondent No.2, S.D.O., Na- tional Highway No.65 Old Rest House Pehowa, Kurukshetra remov- ing the kiosk and unipal forcibly and illegally without right, title or in- terest; Permanent as well as ad-interim injunction was sought re- straining the defendants/respondents from removing the kiosk and unipal of various companies from Ambala Hisar road, Pehowa. 4. Learned trial Court as well as learned first Appellate Court has observed that Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Union of India is the custodian of all National Highways in India and the de- velopment and maintenance expenditure thereof are borne by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways and the State of Haryana through Department of Haryana, P.W.D. (B&R) has been maintaining these roads and Municipal Committee has no jurisdiction or control over the National Highway. It was further observed by the learned first Appellate Court that plaintiff has no right to install kiosk and uni- pal alongside the National Highways in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Namit Kumar vs. U.T. Chandigarh reported in 1998(3)R.C.R. (Civil), 366 and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India reported in J.T. 1997(9) S.C. 213. C.R. No.5636 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find no il- legality or perversity in the judgments passed by both the Courts be- low. Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 can be invoked and exercised only when any manifest error of law or jurisdictional er- ror is pointed out in the orders passed by the Courts below. No manifest error of law is pointed out by learned Counsel for the peti- tioner in the impugned judgments. 6. Revision petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks lib- erty from this Court to raise claim of compensation before the learned trial Court. Petitioner may take all the pleas available under the law before the learned trial Court. No permission for that is required. ( ALOK SINGH ) 29th June, 2010 JUDGE ashish