Summary
The Court quashed notices seeking removal of alleged encroachments on a National Highway under the Tamil Nadu highway law. A notification entrusting development and maintenance under Section 5 of the National Highways Act did not supply the removal power. The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 provided the governing authority and procedure, and the notice-issuing officer was not claimed to be empowered under it. The appeals and writ petitions were allowed, preserving lawful action by the competent authority.
Issues
- Whether the development-and-maintenance delegation under Section 5 authorised the challenged National Highway encroachment notices.
- Whether lack of authority justified interference at the show-cause stage.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, National Highways Act, 1956The delegation of development and maintenance functions did not supply the encroachment-removal power asserted in the challenged notices. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
- Sections 3, 4 and 26, Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002The Highway Administration or its authorised officer had to act under the statutory encroachment-removal framework; no such authority was claimed for the issuer of these notices. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Section 5 placed responsibility for National Highway development and maintenance on the Central Government and enabled notified entrustment of those functions. The respondents’ notification did not justify bypassing the specific later statutory regime for removal of unauthorised occupation. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 12)
- The 2002 Act supplied both the power and procedure for removing National Highway encroachments. The designated Highway Administration or its authorised officer had to invoke that framework. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Although courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with show-cause notices, absence of jurisdiction was a recognised ground for intervention. These notices invoked the State highway provision, and the respondents did not claim that their issuer was authorised under Section 26 of the 2002 Act. (¶¶ 2, 12, 13, 14)
- The High Court judgment and the notices were set aside and the writ petitions allowed. This did not prevent the competent Section 26 authority from taking appropriate lawful action; the Court did not confer a right to continue any encroachment. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeals and writ petitions allowed without costs; notices quashed, with lawful action by the competent Section 26 authority preserved.