Mukeshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court declined to grant the prayer to reopen GST Crossing Gate No. 4. The reasoning provided was that the petitioner's request to reopen the gate solely for the purpose of taking a 'U' turn could not be granted. The Court noted that a new bridge had been constructed, which was located 1.5 kilometers away. This implied that the existing infrastructure and traffic management, including the closure of Gate No. 4, were part of a new arrangement following the bridge's inauguration. The Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the administrative decision or to direct the reopening of the gate based on the petitioner's stated need for a 'U' turn. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in relation to this decision.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukeshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the respondents (Union of India and other authorities) to consider his representations dated June 19, 2018, and June 26, 2018. The core prayer was to direct the respondents to open GST Crossing Gate No. 4 for public use, as it was available before June 16, 2018, prior to the inauguration of a new bridge. The petitioner also sought interim directions to consider these representations and open the gate pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition. The respondents did not file any formal reply or make arguments as recorded in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ, order, or direction to the respondents to consider the representations dated June 19, 2018, and June 26, 2018, and direct the opening of GST Crossing Gate No. 4 for public use. (Question of law and fact, concerning administrative action and public convenience). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that GST Crossing Gate No. 4 should be reopened for public use, as it was available prior to June 16, 2018, before the inauguration of a new bridge. The representations were made to facilitate public access. Revenue/State's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondents in the judgment.