Supreme Court – Daily Orders
S.Rajaseekaran vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 April, 2026
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.7 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
S.RAJASEEKARAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
[ HEARD BY : HON. J.B. PARDIWALA AND HON. K.V. VISWANATHAN,
JJ. ]....
[ MR. GAURAV AGRAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE IS AMICUS CURIAE ].....
[ONLY IA NOS. 43387/25, 119142/25, 288063/2025, 288062/2025,
6710/2025, 58244/2023, 24181/2025, 33035/2021, 71387/2023,
202442/2023, 36566/2024, 43519/2024, 64319/2024, 77921/2024,
278218/2024, 66919/2025, 89362/2025, 116257/2025, 119831/2025,
198996/2025, 207551/2025, 211571/2025 AND 233571/2025 ARE LISTED
UNDER THIS ITEM]
IA No. 58244/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No.
19831/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No. 116257/2025 -
APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No. 66919/2025 - APPROPRIATE
ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 288062/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No.
3387/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No. 202442/2023 -
APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No. 26710/2025 - APPROPRIATE
ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 24181/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.
33035/2021 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION,IA No. 233571/2025 -
CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION.IA No. 71387/2023 -
CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 288063/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION,IA No. 64319/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.04.15
1
18:23:32 IST
Reason:
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
- PERMISSION TO ADD FURTHER ADDITIONAL PRAYERS IN THE
APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 278218/2024 - PERMISSION TO
FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 198996/2025 - PERMISSION
TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 119142/2024 -
PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 77921/2024 -
PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 89362/2025 -
PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 43519/2024 -
PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 36566/2024 -
PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No. 211571/2025
- PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION,IA No.
207551/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION
Date : 09-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
MR. GAURAV AGRAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE IS AMICUS CURIAE
Mr. Ravi Raghunath, AOR
Mr.Nakul Patwardhan, ADv.
Ms. Kaarunya Lakshmi, ADv.
Ms. Sejal Jain, Adv.
Mr. Jagatjeet Singh, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar, AOR
Mr. Vinodh Kanna B, Adv.
For Applicant in
I.A. No.288062/2025 : Mr. Sunil Ahya,Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Raghav Agarwal, Adv,
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
Mr. Vikramjit Bannerjee, A.S.G.
Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay Aor), Adv.
2
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.
Mr. B.k.satija, Adv.
Mr. T.s.sabarish, Adv.
Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G.
Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.
Mr. T.s.sabarish, Adv.
Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Adv.
Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR
Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR
Mr. Kanishk, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Tharani Sre, Adv.
Mr. N.k. Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR
Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Chand Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Dhanya, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, AOR
Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR
Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G.
Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR
Mr. Robin Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kapil Balwani, Adv.
Ms. Komal Thakkar, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
3
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Santhosh K, Adv.
Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR
Mr. Kishan Chand Jain, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sidhant Sahay, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv.
Ms. Savita Singh, AOR
Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv.
Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR
Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR
4
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Aakash Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kishore, AOR
Ms. Ruchira Gupta Standing Counsel, Adv.
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.
Mr. Mohtisham Ali, Adv.
Ms. Sumriddhi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Nitender Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Mr. Sharanya, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv.
Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv.
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Ms. Yanmi Phazang,, Adv.
Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Swati Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Gopal, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR
Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv.
Mr. S.santhosh, Adv.
5
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
Mr. Ravi Raghunath , AOR
M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Annirudh Sharma Ii, Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv.
Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR
Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.
Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR
Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv.
Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Shamra, Adv.
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Alok Nayak, Adv.
6
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
Mr. V. Shyamohan, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR
Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv.
Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR
Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv.
Mr. K.Kant Pandey, Adv
Mr. S.N. Terdal, AOR
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Uprendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Satvik Sharma, ADv.
Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Raghavendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. We heard Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, the leaned Amicus, and Mr.
K.C.Jain, the learned applicant appearing in person. On the
other hand, we heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the General Insurance Companies Counsel
7
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
assisted by learned counsel Mr. Raghav Agarwal and Ms. Ankita
Chaudhary, respectively and Ms. Ruchira Goel, the learned
counsel appearing for the State of U.P.
2. Today, we have before us the report of the Supreme Court
Committee dated 06.04.2026, and the note of learned Amicus.
3. It appears that in due deference to the order passed by
this Court dated 20.11.2025 in Writ Petition (C)No. 295 of 2012,
the Committee held a preliminary meeting on 24.11.2025. The
views of the Committee as expressed in the report read thus:
“29. The Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety after
conducting various meetings with the relevant stakeholders
wishes to highlight certain aspects relating to the
application.
30. The application focuses on Section 162 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the need to have a capless limit on
medical expenses. One must, therefore, look at the
legislative framework of the Act. Chapter XI of the Act
deals with “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third
Party Risks”.
31. It is important to highlight Section 147(2) of the
M.V. Act. The section provides for limit on liability for
third party insurance. Specifically, it states “the8
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012Central Government shall prescribe a base premium and the
liability of an insurer in relation to such premium for an
insurance policy under sub-section (1) in consultation
with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.”
Therefore, it is permissible to have certain limits on the
liability borne by insurers for third party insurance. The
Committee, therefore, further wrote to DFS and MORTH for
their views on the said section.
32. DFS has stated that Third Party Insurance Liability
cannot be uncapped. The General Insurance Companies have
pointed out the burden uncapped Third Party Insurance has
created. Unlike Air or Railway accident compensation,
motor vehicle accidents burden is not capped. DFS has
repeatedly written to MoRTH for notifying the cap mandated
by Section 147(2). However, MoRTH has not yet notified any
cap. MoRTH has sent a reply on 30th March, 2026. Copy of
letter of MoRTH dated 30th March, 2026 is annexed as
Annexure-K.
33. The Committee wishes to highlight that the cashless
treatment scheme was introduced to ensure that road
accident victims are not left without any means of
accessing medical care immediately after the accident. The
cap on the amount of Rs.1.5 lakh/ 7 days has been
introduced after due deliberations and is not arbitrary or
under inclusive and at same time ensures that there is no
misuse by fraudulent claim.
34. The Committee has directed MoRTH to monitor the
initial feedback of the Scheme. As and when, it is felt9
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012that a higher amount would be needed to cover medical
expenses arising from such accidents, the same shall be
increased. At this stage as the Scheme is in its nascent
stage for its implementation, MoRTH will be collecting
feedback on regular basis from all States with a view to
ascertain whether the Scheme is functioning smoothly and
efficiently by providing proper treatment or whether there
arise a need to enhance the cap to a higher limit than
what is presently provided in the Scheme.”
4. The final conclusion drawn by the Committee in its report,
referred to above, reads thus:
“1) The Committee after careful deliberation with all
the relevant stakeholders is of the considered
opinion that
a) The Cashless Treatment Scheme is a recently
introduced scheme. The Scheme is still in its nascent
stages. The Scheme was formulated following the pilot
project and the feedback received thereof. The Scheme
is a step towards ensuring timely medical care to
road accident victims.
b) The Applicant raises an important issue and one
that will require constant monitoring to ensure that
road accident victims are not denied medical care.
c) This Committee is of the opinion that as the pilot
project indicated that 98.64% of all road accident10
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012victims utilized less than Rs.60,000/- on medical
expenses. However, as a measure of abundant caution
and to ensure that the scheme covers as many
individuals as possible, the financial limit is
presently is capped at Rs 1.5 Lakh DFS has also
indicated that the Scheme may be unviable if it is
uncapped and, therefore, any such Scheme has to have
capping/ceiling The resources have to be best
utilized for the larger public good and there is a
need to safeguard against non-road accident cases
and/or fraudulent claims.
d) Most importantly, the Committee finds that the
cashless treatment Scheme does not stop any road
accident victim to ensure benefits of other Schemes
in force. A road accident victim may be catered to by
multiple Schemes of the Central or State Government
for which they are eligible. The Cashless Treatment
Scheme was introduced to ensure that no road accident
victim is denied medical care during the crucial
‘Golden Hour’ period.
e)This Committee also requested the MORTH LO update
the cap of Rs.1.5 Lakh as and when the feedback from
the scheme indicates the same. The MoRTH as mentioned
above is actively monitoring the Scheme in its
initial roll out phase. The MoRTH is cognizant that
the Scheme limit may reconsidered based on the
feedback of the rollout This Committee also requested
the MORTH LO update the cap of Rs.1.5 Lakh as and
when the feedback from the scheme indicates the same.
11
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
The MoRTH as mentioned above is actively monitoring
the Scheme in its initial roll out phase. The MoRTH
is cognizant that the Scheme limit may reconsidered
based on the feedback of the rollout
f) Depending upon the trutial feedback received from
all the States on the implementation of the Scheme in
next six months or 1 year, the issue question can be
re-examined in better perspective.
g) The Committee will constantly monitor and
evaluate the implementation of the Scheme by calling
periodical reports from holders/States, through
MORTH. to see that no injustice is done to any
innocent victim and will keep submitting its views to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court for passing appropriate
orders depending upon the actual feedback received
from the States. Indeed, this was also the request
made by all stakeholders, who participated in the
deliberations.
h) In fact, further data would be required and from
the manner of implementation and the feedback
received, it can be considered as to in what manner,
the time period of treatment may be extended, the
linkages required to access medical aid to road
accident victims in government hospitals, and prevent
misuse of the scheme for treatment not related to
road accidents at all. A reasonable balance would
have to be struck, going forward.
12
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
(2) The Committee considers proper to place on record
that in all the meetings that were held by the.
Committee, it was throughout observed that all
stakeholders representatives were unanimous on one
issue namely that the object of the Act and the
Schemes being for the public good to save the life of
victim immediately after the occurrence of the
accident, this objective will not be compromised and
all efforts, including changes that may be required
from time to time to fulfill this laudable objective,
would be carried out as per the directives of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, without any delay.
5. What we have been able to gather from the report of the
Committee is that the Cashless Treatment Scheme is at a very
nascent stage. The scheme is a step towards ensuring the timely
medical care to road accident victims.
6. What is important to note is that the committee has requested
the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (for short, “the
MoRTH) to update the cap of Rs.1.5 Lakh as and when the feedback
from the scheme indicates the same. The Morth has also been
actively monitoring the scheme in its initial rollout phase.
7. The Committee in its report has informed that it would
13
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
constantly monitor and evaluate the implementation of the scheme
by calling periodical reports from all stakeholders/states
through MoRTH. Once some concrete material comes on record as
regards the functioning of the scheme the cap issue would also
be determined accordingly.
8. The learned Amicus would also like to look into the aforesaid
aspect and offer his suggestions to the Committee including this
Court. The General Insurance counsel shall also put forward
their suggestions before the Committee.
9. At this stage, Mr. Jain, appearing in person, brought to
our notice two provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, i.e.,
Sections 162(1) and (2), respectively. This will also be looked
into by the learned Amicus and the learned Amicus offer his
comments on the same.
10. Insofar as the aforesaid issue is concerned, we leave it to
the learned Amicus to come back to us by mentioning the matter.
11. We also looked into the affidavit filed on behalf of the
State of U.P. duly affirmed by the Special Secretary, Home
Department. In the affidavit the following has been stated.:-
“I, Rakesh Kumar Malpani, S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Malpani,
14
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012aged about 57 years, presently posted as Special
Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That the present Affidavit is being filed
pursuant to the Order dated 22.01.2026 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in the captioned matter,
whereby this Hon’ble Court directed the State
of Uttar Pradesh to, in compliance with its
Affidavit dt. 19.01.2026, undertake the
necessary amendment to the Uttar Pradesh
Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and
Abatement of Proceedings) Act, 1979 in
accordance with law within a period of six
weeks. The present Affidavit is being filed to
place on record the steps taken by the State
Government in compliance thereof.
2. That it is respectfully submitted that the
present matter pertains to the challenge to the
constitutional validity of the amendments made
to the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition
of Offences and Abatement of Proceedings) Act,
1979.
3. That as detailed in the State’s previous
Affidavit, the State had, pursuant to this
Hon’ble Court’s observations in Order dt.
20.11.2025, and the legal opinion obtained in
this regard, decided to amend Section 9 of the
Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of15
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012Offences and Abatement of Proceedings) Act,
1979 to ensure that non-compoundable offences,
offences punishable with mandatory
imprisonment, and subsequent/repeat offences
are not made subject to abatement.
4. That since the State Legislature is not
presently in session, the proposed amendment is
being brought through an Ordinance, namely the
Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of
Offences and Abatement of Proceedings)
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2026.
5. That it is further submitted that the draft of
the proposed Ordinance has already been
prepared and approved at the competent level,
and the process for obtaining approval of the
Hon’ble Council of Ministers for promulgation
of the Ordinance is presently under
consideration and being pursued on priority
basis.
6. That the present Affidavit is being filed to
pursuant to the Order dated 22.01.2026 and may
be taken on record.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified that the facts stated hereinabove are
true to my knowledge as derived from official
record and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
16
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
Verified at ____ on this ____ day of ____.
DEPONENT
12. It appears from the aforesaid that the draft of the
proposed Ordinance has already been prepared and approved at the
competent level and is pending for approval of the Council of
Ministers for promulgation of the Ordinance.
13. We are informed by Ms. Ruchira Goel, the learned counsel
appearing for the State that in fact the Council of Ministers
has also approved and the matter is now pending before the
Governor of the State.
14. Insofar as the aforesaid issue is concerned, let this
matter be heard further on 12th May, 2026. Once the Ordinance
comes into force the learned Amicus will look into it and assist
us further.
15. The learned Amicus has brought to our notice that there are
in all 21 interim applications pending as on date before this
Court and they need to be looked into so that appropriate orders
can be passed. We may give a brief summary of each of the I.A.
The same reads thus:-
“1) IA No.26710 of 2025
[Re- Integration of motor vehicle data across multiple online
platform/data base]17
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
2) IA No.58244 of 2023:
[Re- Recovery of e-challans]
3) IA No.33035 of 2021
[Re- Electronic monitoring of road safety]4) IA No.24181 of 2025
[Re- Management Information System for District Road Safety
Committee]
5) IA No.43387 of 2024 and IA No.202442 of 2023
[Re- Cashless Treatment of road accident victims]
6) IA No.71387 of 2023 & IA No.89362 of 2025
[Re- Hit & Run cases]7) IA No.36566 of 2024
[Re- Swift response protocol]8) IA No.43519 of 2024
[Re- Functioning of National Road Safety Board]9) IA No.64319 of 2024
[Relating to Potholes]10) IA No.77921 of 2024
[Re- Speed Limiting Devices/Speed Governors]11) IA No.278218 of 2024
[Re- Vehicles without third party insurance]12) IA No.66919 of 2025
[Re- Citizen sentinel initiatives for traffic enforcement]13) IA No.116257 of 2025
[Re-accidents due to Tire Bursts]14) IA No.119831 of 2025
[Re- Tracking device in public service vehicles]15) IA No.198996 of 2025
[Re-Water logging/ poor drainage]16) IA No.207551 of 2025
18
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012[Re-National Road Safety Council]
17) IA No.211571 of 2025
[Re-Tractor-trolley-non transport vehicles]18) IA No.233571 of 2025
[Re-Accidents due to Overloading of vehicles]19) IA No.119142 of 2024
[Re- Constitutionality of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition
of Offences and Abatement of Proceedings) Act, 1979 and subsequent
amendments20) IA No.288062 of 2025
[Re- lack of footpaths in Mumbai]21) IA No.50798 of 2025
[Re-footpaths]
16. We leave it to the learned Amicus to give us the number of
those I.As. which require urgent hearing. The three I.As,
referred to below, shall be taken up on 12.5.2026:-
1) IA No.77921 of 2024
[Re- Speed Governors in Transport Motor Vehicles]
2) IA No.119831 of 2025
[Re- Vehicle Location Tracking System Device for
public service vehicles]3) IA No.43519 of 2024
[Re- Functioning of National Road Safety Board (NRSB)]
17. Mr.Sunil Ahaya, the learned counsel submitted that he has
also filed one interim application, i.e., I.A. No. 288062 of
19
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 295/2012
2025. This I.A. relates to preparing City wide master plan for
footpaths and pedestrians. The BMC and Union of India shall
file an appropriate reply to this I.A. before the next date of
hearing.
18. One copy each of the reply that may be filed shall be
furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in
the said I.A.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
20
[ad_1]
Source link
