Gambhir told Open Justice three days before getting the ticket he saw a press release on the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency website stating when nobody was onsite at the long-term project the speed limit was 70km/h.
Police didn't even seem to be aware of the situation, he claimed.
"They used the mistake as an opportunity to issue thousands of speeding tickets."
As part of his appeal he produced the press release for the area, stating the speed limit was 70km/h when the site was unattended but it reduced to 50km/h when the site was attended.
Gambhir gave evidence he received the ticket on a Sunday when no workers were onsite.
He claimed between July 2020 and January 23, 2021, contractors were not fulfilling the obligation to change the temporary speed limit signs back to 70km/h when nobody was onsite.
"If there is knowledge that the speed limit posted is incorrect then how can they be issuing tickets. This means you are cheating the public and cheating the Ministry of Justice."
While the JPs hearing his case were sympathetic to his argument, they noted they had to apply the law and "rightly or wrongly" the speed limit was 50km/h.
While Gambhir paid the fine he appealed the decision in the district court arguing the JPs failed to appreciate the site was unattended and therefore the speed limit should have been 70km/h.
Judge Evangelos Thomas ruled Gambhir couldn't demonstrate the JPs had misinterpreted the word "unattended".
" 'Unattended' can mean many different things. It can mean that there are no works going on at the site. It can mean that there are no works going on that day on the site. It can mean that there are no works going on at that particular moment because everybody is having a coffee break. It could mean all sorts of things," the judge ruled.
Although contractors confirmed there may not have been anybody onsite that day Thomas said Gambhir couldn't prove "the site was unattended from a legal point of view".
He ruled there could be no miscarriage of justice as Gambhir was travelling at 75km/h which was above the 70km/h and the appeal was dismissed.
The decision didn't deter Gambhir who then applied to the High Court to bring a second appeal against the sentence.
His lawyer Justin Harder argued the case was a matter of public importance as it concerned the meaning of "applicable speed limit" and a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the JPs failed to determine whether the temporary speed limit was "right or wrong".
In doing so they failed to determine whether an essential element of the offence was proved and the burden of proof was wrongly shifted onto Gambhir, Harder submitted.
For the Crown Alexander Gee submitted Gambhir failed to raise a tenable argument that the posted speed limit was inoperative and he could not establish there was miscarriage of justice.
Justice Simon Moore, however, was not satisfied Gambhir's argument should be discounted.
He said the issue on appeal would be if the JPs erred in their interpretation of the rules by finding the 50km/h temporary speed limit was effective at the time.
Whether that temporary speed limit was validly set and effective at the time of the alleged infringement was a question of law and the answer involved a reasonably complex exercise of interpreting the rules and had a direct bearing on the risk of a miscarriage of justice, Justice Moore said.
"Neither the Justices nor the District Court Judge appears to have undertaken this interpretative exercise.
"The inescapable conclusion is that this important question did not receive the attention and scrutiny it deserves."
He said the case concerned a matter of public importance and had not yet been fully argued and determined.
"If Mr Gambhir is correct but leave is not granted, a miscarriage of justice will have occurred."
Gambhir agreed there would be huge public interest in the outcome of his appeal and if he's successful believed thousands of motorists could be entitled to refunds for invalid speeding tickets issued.
Leave was granted for the second appeal.
