In an order on road safety and State accountability, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench refused to dispose of a PIL concerning the deplorable condition of National Highway-753F, observing that citizens cannot be left to suffer dangerous roads merely because of financial constraints. The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Neeraj P. Dhote held that the “right to have roads in a reasonable condition is a part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The case arose from a PIL filed by advocate Anand Bangar, who alleged that the highway stretch between Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Ahilyanagar had become accident-prone due to potholes, poor maintenance and lack of safety infrastructure, despite toll collection continuing on portions of the road. The petitioner claimed that commuters were facing respiratory issues, spinal injuries and frequent vehicle damage, while heavy trucks were overturning because of the road condition.
On the other hand, the State, through affidavits, informed the Court that repair and renewal works were underway and ₹50 crore had been sanctioned for the restoration of badly damaged stretches. The Court accepted the State’s assurance that major damaged portions would be repaired before the monsoon, treating it as an undertaking.
Taking note of the State’s affidavit that the highway would be made roadworthy before the onset of monsoon, the Bombay High Court said it may appoint a committee to inspect the quality of repair work carried out on the stretch. The Court emphasised that road repairs should not inconvenience commuters and flagged concerns over uneven pothole patchwork, observing that raised edges caused by poor repairs often damage tyres and create balancing risks for two-wheelers. Stressing accountability, the bench directed the PWD to ensure proper levelling of roads and warned that contractors executing inferior-quality work must be penalised and blacklisted, remarking that the “PWD as well as the contractor cannot play with the lives of the commuters.”
The Court further observed that the State’s affidavit, stating that approvals for repair of the remaining 23.40-km stretch would depend on prioritisation and availability of funds, did not contain any “concrete assurance” regarding completion of the work or development of the entire highway stretch.
“the public cannot be deprived of good, motorable roads for want of funds. We, therefore, deem it appropriate not to dispose of the PIL finally and to keep it alive for the purpose of having some concrete decision, with a timeline, from the Respondents in respect of the subject roads. We expect that, some concrete decision is taken by the Government so as to give shape to the above-referred statement in the Affidavit-in-reply of the Additional Chief Secretary, PWD. We are keeping the PIL for further consideration for reporting compliance in respect of fixing the damaged stretches on the subject roads before monsoon and expect concrete proposal with response in respect of improvement of the balance length and development of the entire length of the subject road with time-line.”
The Court also referred to earlier precedents, where it was held that roads riddled with potholes and hazards amount to a violation of the right to life under Article 21 and dangerous roads expose citizens to avoidable deaths and injuries and that the State has a “constitutional and legal obligation” to ensure safe transport infrastructure.
The High Court ultimately decided to keep the PIL pending and directed the State to file a fresh affidavit detailing the status of repairs to the remaining 23.40-kilometre stretch and the progress of ongoing work by June 9, 2026. The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 16, 2026
Cases Referred
Public Interest Litigation No.71/2013 (High Court On Its Own Motion Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M. P. Road Development Corporation and Another; AIR 2025 SC 3549
In Re: Phalodi Accident Vs. National Highways Authority of India and Others; 2026 SCC Online SC 646
Appearances
Mr. Anand Rajkumar Bangar (Party-in-person appears Through V.C.)
Mr. S. K. Tambe, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.2, 5 to 8
Mr. Rohit S. Sarvadnya, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1
Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.3
