Orissa High Court
WP(C)/15793/2026 of KHAGESWAR SETHI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 20 May 2026
of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15793 of 2026 Khageswar Sethi and others …. Petitioners Represented by Adv.– In person -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Swain, A.G.A. for the State Mr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15793 of 2026
Khageswar Sethi and others
….
Petitioners
Represented by Adv.–
In person
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.–
Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Swain, A.G.A. for the State Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Pradhan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
20.05.2026
01.
1. Let the memo withdrawing the power given to the learned Advocates, who filed the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL), is taken on record.
2. In view of the fact that the petitioners did not intend to engage the learned Advocates in the matter, they are released from the instant matter.
3. Petitioner No.2 appearing in person submits that there has been a complete blockage created by putting a barrier, not only lessening the width of the road, but also restricted the movement of the buses by putting the high barrier as well. According to petitioner No.2, the said road is of immense importance and utility to the inhabitants thereof and even the ambulance in emergent situations cannot ply through the said road because of the blockage having created thereat. In order to corroborate the aforesaid stand, photographs of the said barriers having put on the road is annexed at page-20 of the instant PIL.
4. The prayer made in the instant PIL pertains to the illegal permanent overhead and mobile barricades to be immediately removed and the said road to be secured for free, safe and unhindered movement of the citizen including the emergency and public service vehicles and immediate action to be taken against the person responsible for such unauthorized obstruction.
5. The pictures annexed to the PIL percolate an impression in us that mobile barricades are put, which cannot be said to be a permanent nature. Commonly such barricades are put on the road lessening the width thereof to curve the high speed vehicles to pass through the same with a paramount interest of avoiding any road accident to occur. The topography of the adjacent locality created an impression that there has been an inhabitation having created under the town planning and its dominant purpose is to provide the residence to the inhabitants of the State. Obviously, the movement of the residents while crossing the roads has to be secured and it is an obligation on the part of the Transport Department to take all adequate precautionary measures, which may curb the menace of the road accident to occur. At times, the children also cross the said road either for the purpose of attending the school or for going to the playground or to the market and, therefore, the safety and security cannot be compromised by any stretch of imagination.
6. So far as the overhead barriers having put therein, it is candidly submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for other opposite parties that there is no restriction to the movement of ambulance in an emergent situation or at any time to come, but what has been intended is to avoid the movement of heavy loaded vehicles which, if ply with high speed, may cause an accident to occur and the life and the property of the inhabitants of the said residential locality shall be at stake. They fervently submit that so far as the city buses are concerned, they are plying and the commutation of the inhabitants of the locality in no way have been impeded and/or avoided. The facility of public transport is available in plenty in the locality through which the said road passes. It is a cardinal principle that the decision is taken by a Department on the basis of an empirical data having obtained and if such decision is taken, which enures to the benefit of a larger section of the society, there is hardly any scope for the Court to interfere therewith.
7. The research and the data disseminated in the open platform would reveal that there is a high rise in the numbers of the road accidents than the casualty in any other manner. In the event, the Department is abreast of such reality and has taken a precautionary measure, which would eradicate any casualty to happen, the Court should not interfere in such decision. If the decision appears to be beneficial to a larger section of the society, a handful persons seeking their recognition and/or gaining any kind of publicity should not be encouraged through a feat of the PIL.
8. So far as the mobile barricades are concerned, these are temporary in nature and in the event of any emergency, we do not find that there is any prohibition having created in giving an easy passage to the emergency vehicles. We, thus, do not find that this is a fit case where the Court should interfere.
9. The PIL is, thus, dismissed.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge
S.K. Guin/PA Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-May-2026 18:16:43 Signature Not Verified