NHAI Officials Not Entitled To Protection Of ‘Good Faith’ As They Did Not Take Any Step To Maintain Damaged Road Or To Regulate Traffic: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that NHAI officials are not entitled to protection of ‘good faith’ under Section 28 National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 as they did not take any steps to maintain damaged roads or to regulate traffic in the area.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered against the Petitioner/NHAI officials for the offence under Sections 431, 283, 290, 336, and 427 of IPC.
The bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “If the Highway was damaged and was not motorable and still if the applicants did not take any step to maintain the same or did not take any step to close the Highway or such part thereof or did not take any step to regulate the traffic by restricting the number and speed of vehicles, then this Court is of considered opinion that prima facie it cannot be said that applicants had acted in a good faith….this Court is of considered opinion that applicants are not entitled to the protection given under Section 28 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988.”
Advocate K.N. Pethia appeared for the Appellant and Panel Lawyer Gajendra Parashar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the Petitioner that the complainant lodged a report that he had gone to a village on his private motorcycle when his motorcycle fell in a ditch on account of big ditches on the NH-7 road, as a result, he sustained injuries on his right leg and hand and his motorcycle also got damaged. It was alleged that the responsibility of maintaining the NH-7 road is of NHAI and applicants have been appointed for maintenance but for the last several years, the NH-7 road has not been repaired and levelling has not been done, as a result, he has suffered injury.
The Court perused Sections 4 and 5 of the National Highways Act 1956 and noted that the National Highways shall vest in the Union of India and the responsibility for development and maintenance of National Highways shall be of the Central Government and under some circumstances, the Central Government by notification in official gazette may delegate such power to the State Government.
The Court further noted that the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 provides for the creation of an autonomous National Highways Authority.
The Court also perused Section 16 of the Act and noted that it is the duty of the National Highways Authority of India to develop, maintain and manage the National Highways and any other Highways vested in, or entrusted to, it by the Government.
The Court observed, “Maintaining the Highway would mean that the National Highways Authority of India must keep the Highway in a motorable condition and case if the National Highways Authority of India realizes that the condition of the Highway is not motorable or is unsafe for vehicular or pedestrian traffic because of damage or otherwise, then it may either close the Highway or such part thereof to all traffic or to any class of traffic or regulate the number and speed of vehicles to be used on the Highway or such part thereof, as the case may be, in the manner as it may deem fit.”
The Court said that the finding about the non-availability of protection under Section 28 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 shall remain confined to the proceedings only and shall not prejudice the mind of the trial Court and it shall decide the same after considering the evidence.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title: I.M. Siddiqui v. State of Maharashtra