RAM DNYANOBA BASTAPURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue raised in this Petition is, as to whether the authority which has passed an order under Sec. 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act'), can review it's order by entertaining a review application filed by one of the disputants.

(2.) It is undisputed that Respondent No.2 passed an order under Sec. 3H(4) of the 1956 Act on 12/10/2020, referring the dispute to the Court of original jurisdiction as prescribed in law. For 40 days, he did not transfer the amount of compensation to the Civil Court. On 23/11/2020, almost after 41 days, that Respondent No.3 moved an eight pages application seeking review of the order dtd. 12/10/2020.

(3.) We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. Both are at sea in pointing out as to whether Respondent No.2 had any authority to review his order passed under Sec. 3-H(4). Respondent No.3 contends that under Sec. 3-I, certain powers of the Civil Court are vested in Respondent No.2 and the case of Respondent No. 3 would be covered by sub Sec. (b) to Sec. 3-I of the 1956 Act. This is wholly a falacious argument.