ORDER
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No. 1977 of 2004 dated 23.10.2004 and to quash the same.
2. By the impugned proceedings, the second respondent granted No Objection Certificate on re-examination of the requisition made by one Thiru. Ravichandran for issuance of No Objection Certificate for construction of two arches in the places, one at the side road of four road junction of Perambalur and another at the side road of three road junction of Thuraimangalam. While considering the said requisition by a Council resolution No. 51/6 dated 24.11.2004, the Council is stated to have approved the decision of the Executive Officer to issue No Objection Certificate in the proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 1977/2004, dated 23.10.2004 for construction of above two arches in commemoration of birthday ceremony of the Honourable the Chief Minister. The resolution however stated that such approval is subject to the consent being extended by the National Highways Authority and State Highways Authority.
3. When the writ petition was moved before this Court on 29.1.2005, while ordering notice, a statement was made by the learned Government Advocate that the construction of arches would be stopped awaiting the response of the National Highways Authorities and the State Highways Authorities. After service of notice, when the matter was called today, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the 6th respondent, viz., the Chairman of National Highways Authorities of India, made a statement before this Court confirming that the proposed constructions do not come within the limits of the National Highways existing as well as the proposed four lanes as on date and that any construction made will be subject to any future proposal for the expansion of National Highways.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents placed before this Court the communication of the Additional Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Trichy, who is stated to be in charge of the National Highways Sub-Division, Perambalur, dated 2.2.2005, wherein the details with reference to the location of the proposed constructions have been set out. The drawing has also been enclosed along with the communication. In the said communication, location of the proposed construction has been mentioned as under with reference to each of the arches,
“ARCH No. 1
1. Proposed to be constructed at the Thuraiyur-Perambalur road (Major District Road) which is maintained by the State Highways (ie) Highways Perambalur Sub-Division.
2. The above proposed site is 83m away from the centre line of Madras Trichy Dindigul road of National Highways-45.
3. 52m away from the existing NH45 boundary.
4. 29m away from the proposed four lane road boundary of NH45.
ARCH No. 2
1. Proposed to be constructed at Thuraimangalam to Collectors Bungalow road which is maintained by the State Highways (ie) Highways Perambalur Sub-Division.
2. The above proposed site is 103.50m away from the centre line of Madras-Trichy-Dindigul road of National Highways-45.
3. 80.00m away from the existing NH45 boundary.
4. 65.00m away from the proposed four lane road boundary of NH45.”
5. The learned Additional Advocate General has also produced the notification of the Highways Department in G.O.Ms. No. 250, Highways (HN2), dated 16.12.2003, wherein various State Highways and Major District Roads and other District Roads have been set out. As far as Ariyalur (H) Division is concerned, Thuraiyur-Perambalur road and Thuraimangalam-Bungalow road have been classified as Major District Roads. In such circumstances, since it has been confirmed beyond doubt that none of the proposed constructions fall within the National Highways limit nor is there any objection from those Authorities, there is no scope for granting the relief as prayed for in this writ petition.
6. Having regard to the fact that the first and second respondents have considered the request of the concerned applicant for construction of arches and after examining the same having exercised their jurisdiction while passing the impugned resolution and in the light of the subsequent clarifications made by the 6th respondent herein as well as the second and third respondents, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned proceedings.
7. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. Connected WPMP No. 2779 of 2005 is also dismissed.