WPMS/938/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1403 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPMS No.938 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Suhaas Ratan Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. T.S. Fartiyal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, for the respondent.

The petitioner in the pleadings of the present writ petition had referred to notices which had been issued under Section 26 (2) of the Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. But, unfortunately in the relief clause, there is no challenge given to it, rather the relief has been confined for execution of the award as rendered on 30.12.2017, in Case No.23 of 2015.

In an eventuality, if an award is to be enforced, the petitioner has got a forum available with him as provided under the National Highway Act, 1956 itself. This Court will not, at this stage, be venturing into the propriety of the notice dated 29.04.2022, until and unless, the petitioner amends the relief clause.

The petitioner makes an oral prayer that he may be permitted to add relief No.5, by giving a challenge to the notice of 29.04.2022, which has been issued under section 26 (2) of the Act of 2002. He may do so during the course of the day.

After the amendment was permitted to be carried on an oral request made by the petitioner, the learned counsels for the parties agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally.

Admittedly the notice dated 29.04.2022, was issued under section 26 (2), under the Act of 2002, itself under sub-section (3) of section 26, it provides a forum available to the petitioner for agitating his grievances, by way of filing of the representation under sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Act of 2002.

In view of the aforesaid provisions, where the scope of filing of the representation against the notice which had been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act of 2002, has been issued, the petitioner is relegated to file his representation before the competent authority under sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Act of 2002, and if he does so within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of this judgment, the same would be decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law.

As far as the remaining reliefs are concerned, where the petitioner has adopted the forum under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for depositing of the compensation in pursuance to the award dated 30.12.2017, as rendered in Case No.23 of 2015, before resorting to the recourses under section 3 (H) (i) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The petitioner is relegated to approach the competent executing authority, before whom, the award rendered under the National Highways Act, 1956, could be executed, in accordance with law.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 06.05.2022

NR/