YOG RAJ MANHAS AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA TH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS
WP(C)/3691/2025 · 2026-02-09
Sanjeev Kumar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 818 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 818 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 3691/2025
Date of Pronouncement: 09.02.2026. Date of Uploading: 10 .02.2026.
Yog Raj Manhas & others
…..Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Ankush K. Kotwal, Advocate
vs
Union of India and othes .…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
1. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved, there is no element of amicable settlement between the parties, requiring the reference of this matter to the mediation. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for consideration on merits.
2. In this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following directions:-
“Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No. 3 i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Doda to comply with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 213/2024 titled “Yograj Manhas & others Vs. U.T of J&K and others” in its letter and spirit by way of deciding application made by the petitioners under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the formal application has been filed in terms of Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the respondent No. 3, but the respondent No. 3 is not acting in the matter and is not passing any orders. He, therefore, would submit that the petitioner would feel satisfied, if respondent No. 3 is Serial No. 06
2.
WP(C) No. 1037/2025
directed to perform his statutory duty and decide the application which the petitioners have filed in terms of Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this petition can be disposed of by directing respondent No. 3 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in a time bound manner.
5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the application, if any, filed by the petitioners under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date, a copy of this
judgment is served upon him.
(Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge
Jammu
09.02.2026. Rahul Sharma