Nagpur: The State Government’s claim of having installed 120 temporary toilets on the Samruddhi Mahamarg came under sharp scrutiny from the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday. The judges themselves observed that despite travelling on the expressway recently, they had “not seen even a single porta cabin.”
The remark was made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Anil Wadpalliwar, who has raised concerns about the lack of basic amenities for travellers on the 701-km high-speed corridor.
Gold Rate
13 Oct 2025
During the hearing before Justices Anil Kilor and Rajneesh Vyas, Wadpalliwar also contested the oil companies’ claim that restrooms at Hindustan Petroleum, Bharat Petroleum and Indian Oil outlets along the highway were “up to standard.” On the contrary, he said, these facilities were unhygienic and in deplorable condition.
Earlier, the court had expressed displeasure over the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation’s (MSRDC) vague responses and had sought a detailed report. On Thursday, Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf presented the government’s stand, stating that 30 civic amenity centres had been planned—15 on each side of the highway. Of these, 22 are operational, while work on the remaining eight is in progress.
He further assured the court that a total of 200 porta cabins were sanctioned, with 120 already erected and 80 under construction. But the bench was unconvinced. “We travelled up to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar a few days ago and did not see even a single porta cabin,” the judges observed, demanding exact details of their locations.
The court has directed the state to furnish this information by September 8 and asked the petitioner to independently verify the claims, along with photographic evidence. The next hearing has been scheduled for September 12.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Subodh Dharmadhikari, appearing for the oil companies, admitted that the toilets may not be in “very good condition” but argued they were in “decent condition.” He added that maintaining them was difficult since they 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 argued on behalf of the petitioner.
