Delay in implementing projects like Mumbai-Goa National Highway burdens State exchequer: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday remarked that delays in completing infrastructure projects not only caused difficulties to the citizens, but also burdened the State exchequer, while hearing a petition concerning the Mumbai-Goa National Highway [Owais Pechkar v. Union of India & Ors]..A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor noted that the repair and widening of the Mumbai-Goa National Highway (NH-66), which was started in 2011, was not yet completed and that this was creating difficulties for commuters."The road widening and other repair work is not yet complete despite 12 long years since it was undertaken. Delay in such infrastructure projects not only causes numerous difficulties to the population which uses roads but ultimately comes as a burden on the state exchequer. Any delay in such projects necessarily entails rising construction cost which is ultimately borne by the public at large," the bench noted in its order.The Court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer, Owais Pechkar, who raised grievances over the difficulties faced by commuters. He sought directions to the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and the State government to expedite the repair of potholes on the road and to widen the road. Incomplete work was causing accidents, the Court was told. Pechkar argued that the authorities had been extending the deadline to complete the project every year and that they should finish the work at the earliest for the ease of commuters.In response, the NHAI assured the Court that the entire work on NH66 (Panvel to Sawantwadi) will be completed by December 31, 2024.On this assurance, the bench disposed of the PIL."The entire stretch shall be complete in all aspects including road widening and repairs by 31 December 2024. This direction is based on the assurance of the State Public Works Department (PWD), NHAI. Any deviation in the form of any delay in the timeline may be viewed by the court seriously which may amount to contempt," the Court warned in its order.