Chandrashekhar S/O Krushnarao Bawankule v. The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Public Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2012 [Chandrashekhar Krushnarao Bawankule Vs. State of Mah. & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Mr. A. S. Kilor, Adv., for the petitioner.

Mr. Madiwale, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.A. Kathane, Adv., for respondent no.3.

Mr. Darda, Adv., for respondent no.4.

Mr. M.A. Sable, Adv., for respondent no.5.

Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Adv., for respondent no.6. ----

CORAM

:

B.R. GAVAI AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE :

27th April, 2017 In view of the letter dated 24th March, 2017, addressed by the Director General [RD] & SS, Ministry of Transport, to the Regional Officer, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Mumbai, informing that the Union of India will take action to expedite on priority basis the CRF proposals which are the subject matter of the present Public Interest Litigation, the purpose of the present petition stands served.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that some time-bound programme be given to the Union of

India to do the work.

We do hope that the State Government and the Union of India would act in unison and complete the project of the roads as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of six months from today. Needless to state that if the Union of India comes to a conclusion that the deterioration of roads is on account of plying of heavy vehicles by respondent nos. 3 and 4, the respondent no.6 - Union of India would be at liberty to recover the necessary costs from them.

Judge Judge.

|hedau|