The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned the State Government’s claim of installing 120 temporary toilets along the Samruddhi Mahamarg. The judges noted that during their own recent journey on the expressway, they had “not seen even a single porta cabin.”
The observation came while hearing a PIL filed by social activist Anil Wadpalliwar, who highlighted the absence of basic facilities for travellers on the 701-km high-speed corridor
During the hearing before Justices Anil Kilor and Rajneesh Vyas, petitioner Anil Wadpalliwar also challenged the oil companies’ assertion that restrooms at outlets of Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum, and Indian Oil along the highway were “up to standard.” In reality, he argued, these facilities were unhygienic and in deplorable condition.
Earlier, the court had pulled up the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) for its vague replies and demanded a detailed report. On Thursday, Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf outlined the government’s position, stating that 30 civic amenity centres—15 on each side of the Samruddhi Mahamarg—were planned, of which 22 are operational and work on the remaining eight is underway.
He added that 200 porta cabins had been sanctioned, with 120 installed and 80 still under construction. The bench, however, was not convinced. “We travelled up to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar a few days ago and did not see even a single porta cabin,” the judges remarked, asking the state to provide exact locations.
The court directed the government to submit the details by September 8 and instructed the petitioner to verify the claims independently with photographic evidence. The matter will be heard again on September 12.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Subodh Dharmadhikari, representing the oil companies, conceded that the toilets may not be in “very good condition” but insisted they were in “decent condition.” He argued that upkeep was difficult since the facilities were used not only by highway commuters but also by residents of nearby villages. “Now, the companies are confused whether they should sell petrol or maintain toilets,” he remarked.
Advocate Shrirang Bhandarkar appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
👉 Click here to read the latest Gujarat news on TheLiveAhmedabad.com