Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceutical Limited, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 34223 of 2019 W.M.P. Nos. 34859 of 2019 & 5181 of 2020
Decided On : 15-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21, 226 - Nation Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3A(1), 3D(2) - Writ Petition - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Direct respondents to accept any of suggested alternate alignment plans and forbear respondents from acquiring land as per approved alignment plan of respondents - Proposed highway runs in middle of petitioner's premises and it bifurcates manufacturing unit of petitioner existing factory is an integrated unit, proposed acquisition would render seamless integration redundant and will result in closure of factory - Since there was no reply from respondents, the petitioner made another representation - Petitioner is not against acquisition proceeding but only seeks a realignment of proposed highway and requested for personal hearing - Petitioner submitted alternative alignment plans have been devised by petitioner company by hiring experts - Though petitioner made several representations seeking opportunity of hearing, same were not considered before passing impugned order - It violates the principles of natural justice and impugned order cannot be sustained – Held, Court directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation by technical experts to explore possibility of utilizing the alternative land, it doesn't mean that expert Committee should consider about effect on the petitioner's factory premises, if proposed alignment of road laid - Respondent rightly considered request of petitioner and passed order - Court directed respondent to form a Committee of experts Committee was formed and conducted detail enquiry by two meetings and finally concluded that modification in alignments approved is not feasible - Projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in country, are entrusted to experts in field of highways - Court will not normally transgress in to field of policy decision or opinion of experts of particular field - Court cannot make a rowing enquiry as to whether a public policy is wise and whether better public policy can be involved - In absence of any malafide or unreasonableness or unfairness, decision of the authorities cannot be faulted at all - Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondent - Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of rejection of the fifth respondent vide letter No.11020/NHAI/PIU-K“giri” W.P.4466/2019/774 dated 04.05.2019, quash the same as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional, direct the respondents herein to accept any of the suggested alternate alignmnet plans and further forbear the respondents from acquiring the land as per the approved alignment plan of the respondents, in survey Nos.263/2A, 263/2B, 263/3A1A, 263/A1B, 263/3A2, 263/3B, 263/3C, 264/2, 264/3A, 264/3B, 266/2, 266/4, 267/3, 283/1A1, 285/1B of Vanapadi Village, Walajapet Taluk, Vellore District.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order of rejection of the fifth respondent vide letter No.11020/NHAI/PIU-K“giri” W.P.4466/2019/774 dated 04.05.2019, quash the same as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional, direct the respondents herein to accept any of the suggested alternate alignmnet plans and further forbear the respondents from acquiring the land as per the approved alignment plan of the respondents, in survey Nos.263/2A, 263/2B, 263/3A1A, 263/A1B, 263/3A2, 263/3B, 263/3C, 264/2, 264/3A, 264/3B, 266/2, 266/4, 267/3, 283/1A1, 285/1B of Vanapadi Village, Walajapet Taluk, Vellore District.
2. The petitioner company has manufacturing unit at State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (herein after called as “SIPCOT”) industrial complex, Ranipet, Vellore District and it carries manufacturing activities of Ephedrine Pseudoephedrine and Phenylephrine. It is situated at 14.26 acres and an additional area 12.22 acres for the purpose of green belt which is necessary for compliance with environmental norms. The said land was originally purchased by the petitioner from the SIPCOT. While being so, the fourth respondent conducted a survey relating to the acquisition of land for Chittoor – Ranipet NH4. Thereafter, the notification has been issued in the Central Government, union gazette in Ref No.594, S.O.No.674(C) under Part II, section 3 sub section 2 dated 15.02.2018. The first respondent also issued notification under Section 3A(1) of the Nation Highways Act, 1956 (herein after called as “the Act”) dated 06.03.2018, thereby proposed to acquire lands, a part of which the petitioner's land comprised in survey Nos.263/2A, 263/2B, 263/3A1A, 263/A1B, 263/3A2, 263/3B, 263/3C, 264/2, 264/3A, 264/3B, 266/2, 266/4, 267/3, 283/1A1, 285/1B of Vanapadi Village, Walajapet Taluk, Vellore District. The said notification under 3A(1) of the Act, dated 06.03.2018 was published in the Newspaper viz., Dina Thanthi and Indian Express on the same date.
3. The proposed highway runs in the middle of the petitioner's premises and it bifurcates the manufacturing unit of the petitioner and since the existing factory is an integrated unit, the proposed acquisition would render the seamless integration redundant and will result in the closure of the factory. Therefore, the petitioner made representation on 24.11.2018 and thereafter on 10.01.2019 made another representation. Since there was no reply from the respondents, the petitioner made another representation dated 25.01.2019. Though the petitioner raised objections, the petitioner is not against the acquisition proceeding but only seeks a realignment of the proposed highway and requested for personal hearing. It was not considered by the respondents as such, the petitioner company approached this Court in W.P.No.4466 of 2019 challenging the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act dated 06.03.2018.
4. While pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner's objections by representations were rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 20.02.2019, stating that the alignment as proposed by the respondents cannot be modified at this stage. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
