1 WP / 1959 / 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1959 OF 2025 1] Sukesh S/o Kishanrao Bhandare Age 46 years, Occ. Agri. 2] Avinash S/o Dayanoba Motade Age 47 years, Occ. Agri. Both R/o. Pangaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur 3] Ravindra S/o Balasaheb Deshmukh Age 50 years, Occu. Agri. 4] Rajendra S/o Vishwamber Giri Age 75 years, Occu. Agri. Both R/o Murdhav, Ta. Renapur, Dist. Latur .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrlaya, Mumbai – 32 and others .. Respondents ... Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. S.G. Jadhavar h/f. Mr. N.D. Kendre AGP for the respondent – State : Ms. S.S. Joshi Advocate for respondents no. 3, 6 to 8 : Mr. S.S. Deve ... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 11 FEBRUARY 2025 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : The petitioners claiming to be the villagers, are soliciting a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to complete the 2025:BHC-AUG:4044-DB 2 WP / 1959 / 2025 construction of national highway no. 361H claiming that due to delay in execution of the work, their right to life has been adversely affected. 2. We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners. 3. Even if some pragmatic view is to be adopted, in our considered view, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised in such matters where the national highways authority has been undertaking the work for construction of roads but has not been able to complete the construction within the reasonable time. There could be several variables, which this Court may not be able to objectively consider for delayed completion. 4. Nothing is attributed to the respondents much less mala fides, to reach a conclusion that they have been abdicating a public duty with some ulterior motive. 5. The petition is dismissed. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/