Ashutosh Vishnu Kankal And Another v. Collector, Washim And Others

(1) 903.CAO.150.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 150 OF 2021 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.126 OF 2021(REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO.5371 OF 2019 Ashutosh Vishnu Kankal and anr.

Vs.

Collector, Washim and others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rahul S. Kurekar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl. G. P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 18/02/2021 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed.

Review application be registered and listed on Board on today forthwith and taken up on Board for hearing forthwith.

Civil Application is disposed of.

Misc. Civil Application No.126/2021 Although review of the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by this Court in the original Writ Petition No. 5371 of 2019 has been sought, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the review applicant that the

(2) 903.CAO.150.21 dispute here is about the Section under which alternate remedy could be available. In the order passed by us it has been mentioned that such an alternate remedy is available under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,1956, whereas the learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is actually available under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. If this is so, the alternate remedy available under Section 3-H(4) being statutory, it would always be available to a party raising a dispute under it, if the dispute otherwise falls within the scope and authority of Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Therefore, we do not find that there is any need for allowing this application and it is disposed of with the above referred observations.

JUDGE JUDGE Sarkate