NHAI Repairs Craters, Potholes, Restores Motorability to NH‑75 Near Enjira, Plans Elephant Underpass

In the early months of the present year, motorists traversing the four‑lane B.C. Road–Adda Hole corridor reported a succession of newly formed craters and deep potholes that rendered the portion of National Highway 75 near the township of Enjira intermittently impassable, thereby compromising both commercial freight schedules and quotidian commuter safety.

Local residents, whose agrarian livelihoods depend upon reliable road access for transporting produce to regional marketplaces, voiced mounting frustration in town‑hall assemblies and wrote petitions to both the district administration and the National Highways Authority of India, alleging a dereliction of duty that appeared to contravene statutory obligations under the Roads and Bridges Development Act of 2001.

In response, the NHAI dispatched a field engineering contingent on the twenty‑second of April, which after a brief survey declared the fissures to be the result of inadequate sub‑grade compaction combined with seasonal monsoonal groundwater infiltration, thereby justifying an immediate remedial programme involving the application of cold‑mix asphalt and the temporary erection of steel culverts to bypass the most treacherous depressions.

The remediation, completed on the seventh of May, reportedly eliminated the most egregious potholes, filled the larger craters to a depth consistent with design specifications, and restored a continuous carriageway width sufficient to accommodate the prescribed volume of heavy‑goods traffic, thereby allowing the highway to be declared motorable for all classes of vehicles pending the finalisation of the proposed elephant underpass.

The elephant underpass, envisaged as a grade‑separated wildlife crossing to mitigate the documented incidence of vehicular collisions with pachyderms along this ecologically sensitive corridor, remains in the design stage, with projected costs and construction timelines yet to be ratified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, evincing a familiar pattern whereby infrastructural promises outpace the allocation of requisite fiscal and bureaucratic resources.

Given that the National Highways Authority of India exercised remedial authority to seal craters and restore motorability without public tendering or transparent reporting, ought the affected residents to be entitled to a statutory audit of the expenditure, an inquiry into the procurement of materials, and a legal determination of whether the emergency repairs complied with the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Public Works Contracts Regulations of 2015? Furthermore, considering that the projected elephant underpass remains unfunded and its design unapproved, should the municipality be compelled to allocate a dedicated reserve from its development fund, subject to oversight by an independent environmental commission, thereby ensuring that the promised wildlife mitigation is not indefinitely deferred by administrative inertia or fiscal re‑prioritisation? Additionally, in view of the ecological significance of the corridor, does the present absence of an independently verified Environmental Impact Assessment for the underpass contravene the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, thereby obligating the central authority to suspend further construction until such documentation is produced and subjected to public scrutiny?

In light of the recent emergency works that temporarily restored the highway yet left subsequent preventative maintenance plans undocumented, might the State Government be liable under the National Highway Safety Act for any future incidents arising from residual structural weaknesses, and does the existing legal framework prescribe a clear chain of responsibility that obligates the NHAI to furnish a long‑term maintenance schedule subject to periodic parliamentary review? Moreover, given that the local populace submitted petitions requesting not only immediate repair but also comprehensive risk assessments and community‑sensitive design of the wildlife crossing, should legislative amendments be enacted to empower a statutory grievance‑redressal tribunal with binding authority to adjudicate such infrastructure grievances, thereby preventing future occurrences wherein administrative expediency eclipses the documented concerns of ordinary citizens? Finally, ought the fiscal accountability mechanisms governing the allocation of central highway funds to incorporate mandatory post‑implementation audits that evaluate both structural integrity and environmental compliance, thereby furnishing the judiciary with concrete evidentiary bases to enforce remedial action where public infrastructure fails to meet legislated standards?

Published: May 18, 2026

Published: May 18, 2026