The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court delivered a stern rebuke to a senior official of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on Tuesday. The court warned that providing allegedly incorrect information in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the stalled Nagpur–Katol highway project could lead to serious legal repercussions for misleading the judiciary.
Court Demands Written Explanation, Contemplates Contempt
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Rajnish Vyas directed the NHAI project officer to submit a written explanation. The judges orally questioned why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him for "misleading the court." This strong directive came after the submission of a report by a court-appointed committee, which presented findings that sharply contradicted the claims made earlier by the NHAI in its affidavits.
The court was hearing two connected PILs. One was filed by Katol residents Dinesh Thakre and Sumit Babuta, focusing specifically on the stalled highway project. The other was filed by Advocate Arun Patil, highlighting the overall poor condition of highways across the Vidarbha region. Senior Counsel Firdos Mirza represented Advocate Patil, while Mahesh Dhatrak appeared for the Katol residents. Anish Kathane represented the NHAI.
Committee Report Exposes Dangerous Conditions
Previously, the court had ordered the formation of a three-member lawyers' committee to verify the NHAI's claims. This committee, consisting of Ashwin Deshpande, Aradhya Pande, and Prasad Bawankule, conducted a detailed spot inspection on December 20. On Tuesday, they presented a comprehensive report to the bench, supported by photographs and video recordings.
The committee's findings were alarming. It reported that the final 3-kilometer stretch leading towards Katol was "completely devoid of safety arrangements." The absence of signboards and reflectors made night travel on this section "extremely dangerous." The panel identified several accident-prone zones, particularly near the railway crossing on Katol Road, where roads beneath flyovers were severely eroded.
The report further observed that three flyovers under reconstruction were poorly barricaded, lacked proper reflectors and traffic management, forcing commuters onto unsafe service lanes. One flyover was described as being in an "extremely hazardous" condition, with visibly bent and dilapidated walls.
NHAI's Assurance and Court's Scrutiny on Contract Enforcement
While the NHAI acknowledged that only 3 km of work remained pending and assured the court that all necessary safety measures would be implemented by January 15, the bench was not satisfied. The judges expressed clear displeasure at what appeared to be the shielding of the contractor despite evident violations of the contract terms.
The bench pointedly questioned the authority's inaction, asking, "When terms are clearly laid down, why is no action taken even after breaches are evident?" The court emphasized that enforcing contract conditions was the unequivocal responsibility of the authorities.
Taking serious note of the committee's report, the bench questioned the NHAI project officer present in court and directed him to file his detailed explanation by January 13, 2026. The petitions highlighted that the four-laning work between the 13 km and 62.9 km markers was awarded to two contractors but has remained stalled for nearly six months, causing public inconvenience and safety hazards.
