HC seeks clarity on NHAI’S power to litigate for Union of India, orders guidelines within month

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to convene a meeting with the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways within a month and frame concrete guidelines on whether NHAI can file or defend cases on behalf of the Union of India.

The direction came after Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain specifically stated before the court that “there is no confusion with regard to the same, as National Highways Authority of India cannot file any case on behalf of the Union of India.”

However, senior counsel Chetan Mittal submitted that confusion continued to persist and required authoritative clarification.

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri observed that the issue required consideration “at the highest level” to prevent recurrence of similar disputes.

The court held: “The issue as to whether National Highways Authority of India can file or defend cases at different forums on behalf of the Union of India or not needs to be considered at the highest level so that in the future no such confusion arises.”

Accordingly, the Bench directed the Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India to convene a meeting with the Joint Secretary, Union of India, in the Ministry of Road Transport, within a month, on the issue before issuing concrete guidelines to prevent confusion in the future.

The issue before Justice Puri’s Bench arose after the NHAI and another petitioner filed a petition against arbitrator-cum-commissioner, Patiala Division, and other respondents.

Appearing for the Union of India on the previous date of hearing, Jain told the Court that the Centre had neither permitted nor authorised NHAI to institute litigation in its name.

“The Union of India has not authorized the National Highways Authority of India to file a petition in its name. Rather, any case which is to be filed on behalf of or in favour of the Union of India can be done only through the office of the Additional Solicitor-General of India, and there is no such authorization to the National Highways Authority of India,” Jain added.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for one of the parties submitted that arbitral proceedings were not moving forward following the pendency of the High Court petition. Clarifying the position, Justice Puri made it explicit that “no interim protection had been granted” and that arbitration could proceed independently.

“It is made clear that the pendency of the present petition will not create any embargo or impediment for the Divisional Commissioner-cum Arbitrator to further proceed with the case. In other words, no stay or interim order has been granted by this Court,” Justice Puri asserted.