Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE V. V. KANKANWADIHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HITEN SHAMRAO VENEGAVKAR
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GANGAKHED THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS – Respondent
CA/5601/2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to cancel the proposed construction of a Railway Over Bridge/Railway Under Bridge with a service road on Gangakhed–Akoli–Kodri Road due to alleged unnecessary expenditure and changes in railway alignment plans (!) .
The petitioner contended that the Railway Department had decided to shift the railway line approximately 2–3 kilometers away, eliminating LC No.17, which would render the existing bridge and overbridge project unnecessary and wasteful (!) (!) .
The petitioner argued that despite this, the respondents issued a tender notice for the project, which they considered illegal, unlawful, and arbitrary, as the project was no longer required due to the railway’s plan to shift the alignment (!) .
The petitioner highlighted public objections, representations to authorities, and concerns over the project’s impact on local infrastructure, historical sites, and public institutions, asserting that the project was driven by private interests and lacked proper consideration of alternatives (!) .
The respondents opposed the PIL, claiming that the project was necessary to address urban congestion, improve connectivity, and serve public interests, and that the petitioner’s private property interests and personal grievances motivated the litigation (!) .
The Court emphasized that PIL jurisdiction is extraordinary and should not be misused for private or commercial interests, particularly when the petitioner’s property and personal concerns are involved (!) .
The Court found that the overbridge is intended as a connectivity and decongestion measure, not solely based on railway gate closures, and that the decision was rationally connected to public safety and urban mobility objectives (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the railway’s intention to shift the alignment is not yet definite or imminent, and that infrastructure projects often involve evolving plans, land acquisition, and scheduling, which cannot be restrained solely on speculative future developments (!) (!) .
The Court found no evidence of mala fides or bias in the decision-making process and held that the tender process was not vitiated by illegality or procedural irregularities (!) (!) .
The Court reiterated that judicial review of policy decisions and infrastructure projects is limited to examining legality, irrationality, mala fides, or arbitrariness, and should respect the executive’s discretion in long-term planning (!) (!) .
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s challenge was based on speculation and private interests, and that the project’s benefits in reducing congestion and improving connectivity justified its continuation (!) .
The PIL was dismissed, and all interim orders related to the project were vacated, with no costs awarded (!) (!) .
The intervention application was also disposed of accordingly (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
##PAGE1##
2026:BHC-AUG:5531-DB
10-25-PIL.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.10 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5601 OF 2025 IN PIL/10/2025 [For intervention]
Shriniwas S/o.Gyandeorao Mundhe
Age: 56 years, Occu.: Social Service &
Agriculture, R/o. Borda, Tq. Gangakhed
Dist. Parbhani
At Present: Gangakhed, Tq.Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani. … Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railway Department.
New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Regional Manager,
South Central Railway,
Nanded Division, Rail Vikas Sadan,
Sangvi Naka, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai – 32.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through: The Principal Secretary
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai – 32.
5. The District Collector,
Parbhani, District Parbhani.
6. The Tahsildar,
Gangakhed, Tq.Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani.
7. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Nanded Region, Nanded,
Dist. Nanded.
##PAGE2##10-25-PIL.odt
{2}
8. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.
9. The Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani. … Respondents
......
Mr. P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Rohit Sarvadnya, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2
Mr. A.G. Girase, Government Pleader for respondents No.3 to 9
Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Applicant/intervener in
CA/5601/2025
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 30 JANUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. The petitioner has instituted the present Public Interest
Litigation seeking, in substance, directions to the respondent authorities
to cancel the proposed construction of a Railway Over Bridge/Railway
Under Bridge with service road on Gangakhed–Akoli–Kodri Road (State
Highway-34) at Km 0/00 on LC No.17 (Railway Chainage 295/8-9),
Taluka Gangakhed, District Parbhani, and to quash and set aside the
e-tender notice bearing No.44 for the year 2024–2025 dated 14
February 2025, issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division,
Parbhani.
##PAGE3##10-25-PIL.odt
{3}
2. The petitioner asserts that the very foundation of the proposed
work has ceased to exist because the Railway Administration has,
according to him, altered its plans relating to doubling of the railway
line between Parbhani and Parli stations, and has decided to shift the
alignment of the railway track by about 2–3 kilometres away from the
existing track, thereby proposing elimination of LC No.17. It is on this
premise that the petitioner contends the proposed overbridge/flyover at
the existing location is unnecessary, wasteful of public funds, and legally
unsustainable.
3. The factual narrative set out in the petition is as follows.
Initially, respondents, including the Union of India and the Railway
authorities, had decided to undertake a project of doubling of the
railway track between Parbhani and Parli railway stations, the project
cost being stated to be about Rs.625.08 crores. The petitioner’s case is
that later the Railway Department decided not to construct doubling by
taking the existing alignment, and instead resolved to shift the track
alignment 2–3 kilometres away from the existing track, and to eliminate
LC No.17. It is stated that respondent No.2 addressed a communication
dated 25.07.2024 to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division,
Parbhani (respondent No.8) and to the Sub-Divisional Engineer,
Gangakhed PWD (respondent No.9), informing them of the said
##PAGE4##10-25-PIL.odt
{4}
decision/intention. The petitioner contends that once such
communication was issued, it was not justifiable for the PWD to
proceed with any tendering for construction of a bridge at LC No.17 on
the existing alignment, as the bridge would become redundant upon the
track shift.
4. It is pleaded that despite the above, in October 2024, the
respondents issued public notice inviting bids. The petitioner asserts
that t
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
