Case against contractor for highway deaths, why not PWD officials: High Court

The Bombay High Court questioned why Public Works Department (PWD) officials are not being held accountable in a case where an FIR was registered against employees of a road construction company for multiple accidents and deaths on National Highway 17 (NH17, now NH66) between Indapur in Pune and Wadpale in Raigad district of Maharashtra.

While hearing the matter, the bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil directed the Raigad police not to file a chargesheet against the accused company employees without the court’s permission.

The FIR was registered by the National Highway Authority blaming the project coordinator, general manager, and director of the company for failing to complete the highway project and for not handing over the road to the government.

It cited the absence of diversion boards and the poor condition of the road — including potholes — as causes for 170 accidents since 2020, which have led to 17 deaths and injuries to 208 people.

“How can you thrust vicarious liability on somebody?If anybody dies in any accident, the contractor is responsible? Why not the officers of PWD who are not supervising it properly?” the bench asked the prosecution.

The Additional Public Prosecutor requested time to take instructions. Advocate Karan Kadam, representing the petitioners, said the contract had been awarded in 2017, but due to various complications, the work faced repeated delays.

“In 2024, a FIR was filed against the employees, not even the company, alleging that all the accidental deaths that have taken place from 2020 onwards, we are responsible for the.. This is an inherently absurd situation because. It started with 17 deaths, and now it stands at 97 deaths,” Kadam argued.

The petition also said that the project ran into trouble due to “many teething problems” and that failure to meet deadlines in a commercial contract could not be criminalised.

“A missed deadline in a commercial contract; a delayed, or even a failed, project; or subsequent inability to fulfil a contract on account of supervening factors cannot be brought within the purview of criminal law, with a view to extorting, blackmailing and shifting the blame on the Petitioners,” the plea read.

Concluding the hearing, the court allowed the investigation to continue but made it clear that the investigating agency cannot file a chargesheet without its leave.

- Ends