Balkrishna Lalji Metha Since Decd. Thr. Lrs. And ORS v. The Chief Engineer,National Highways Pwd, Kokan Bhawan, And ORS

bipin prithiani 901-wp-15913.24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15913 OF 2024 Balkrishna Lalji Mehta since decd. through LRs & Ors.

...

Petitioners

Versus

The Chief Engineer, National Highways PWD, Kokan Bhawan & Ors.

...

Respondents ****** Mr. Anil Y. Sakhare i/by Mr. Vivek V. Salunke for the Petitioners. Mr. Rakesh L. Singh i/by M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G. P. a/w Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4-State.

Mr. Shailendrekumar Vithal Gund, Executive Engineer of Respondent No.1, present.

BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2026.03.05 16:50:15 +0530 BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : 5th MARCH 2026 P.C. :

.

Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1National Highways Authority of India, submits that the reply affidavit could be e-filed only yesterday. It is to be noted that due to lack of response on behalf of the said respondent, on 12th February 2026, this Court was constrained to pass an order directing the Executive Engineer of respondent No.1 to remain personally present in this Court. It was directed that, in any case, reply affidavit shall be placed on record before the next date of listing.

2.

The record shows that the reply affidavit was received today i.e. 5th March 2026 and it was obviously e-filed yesterday after the

bipin prithiani 901-wp-15913.24.doc Court working hours. Copies of the reply affidavit have not been served on the parties and therefore, it would be necessary that such copies are duly served, so that the stand of respondent No.1 can be taken into consideration by this Court. 3.

It is unfortunate that to ensure that respondents, like respondent No.1 herein, place their affidavits on record, this Court is constrained to issue directions for responsible officers of such respondents remaining personally present in Court. It is indeed an unpleasant direction, but we are constrained to pass such direction where the respondents take the orders passed by this Court lightly. The majesty of this Court has to be respected and therefore, such directions are warranted. 4.

We have been told that Mr. Gund, Executive Engineer, is present in Court in compliance of the direction issued in the order dated 12th February 2026.

5.

The Officer need not remain present on future dates, unless otherwise directed by this Court.

6.

The copies of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 shall be served on the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGP, during the course of the day. 7.

List the petition for further consideration on 10th March 2026, to be included in the supplementary list. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)