AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 224 wordsPankaj Purohit, J
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the notice dated 16.03.2026 (Page 17), issued by respondent No.2, by which the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 was called upon to appear before respondent No.2 personally or through their respective advocates on 30.06.2026 at 11:00 a.m. and to give their version about the notice.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice is per se illegal and cannot be issued. He further submits that the compensation has already been calculated and awarded to petitioner ten years back in 2016-17 and therefore, the matter cannot be reopened.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4/NHAI submits that notice has been issued and the grievance of petitioner can very well be raised before respondent No.2.
He refers to Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and submits that in case of any dispute between the parties regarding entitlement and apportionment of the compensation, CALA can refer the dispute to Principal Civil Court under the aforesaid Act.
In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in-limine. Petitioner may raise his grievance before the Competent Authority under the aforesaid Act.
Pending application stands disposed of.