Vikram Yadav @ Bikram Yadav v. Union Of India And ORS.

August 26, 2021 ARDR (42) WPA 12740 of 2021 Vikram Yadav alias Bikram Yadav Vs.

The Union of India & ors.

Mr. Kaushik Chandra Gupta, ...for the petitioner.

Ms. Maanika Roy, ...for the NHAI.

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Supratim Dhar, ...for the State.

The petitioner complains of non-consideration of a representation and objection served to a notice under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have deliberately and intentionally failed to receive this representation and objection dated 6th August, 2021 appearing at page 60 (Annexure P/4 to the petition).

The State respondents are represented and deny the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the entire case made out in the petition is fragment of imagination and there is no basis to the same. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also submits that the petitioner has not served the aforesaid representation and/or objection and there is blatant false history in the case ought to be made out by the petitioner.

However, in all fairness, both the respondents submit that the Project Director, being the respondent no.2, will consider and dispose of the representation and/or objection within a period of four weeks from date in accordance with law.

In view of the submissions made by the respondents, the respondent no.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the objection appearing at page 60 of the petition within a period of four weeks from date and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period two weeks thereafter.

With the aforesaid directions, WPA 12740 of 2021 is disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)