Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR PERMANENT BENCH (YUPIA)
Kardak Ete, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, JJ.
Shri Kesang Wangdi, S/O Phuntso Norbu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondent
PIL.22(AP)2024
Decided On : 19-12-2024
(A) Public Interest Litigation - The petitioner challenges the Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.01.2023 for road construction under PMGSY-III, claiming the selected road does not meet eligibility criteria based on population and infrastructure. The court finds the petitioner's assertions to be unsubstantiated and politically motivated, emphasizing that PILs should address genuine public grievances and not personal vendettas. (Paras 12, 14, 19)
(B) Guidelines for PIL - The court reiterates the need for careful scrutiny of PILs to prevent misuse of judicial processes for personal gain, referencing established precedents that caution against frivolous petitions. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner argues that the Gomshing village lacks the necessary population and infrastructure to qualify for the road project under PMGSY-III, asserting that the project is a misuse of government funds.
Findings of Court:
The court dismisses the PIL, stating it is an abuse of the judicial process aimed at personal grievances rather than public interest.
Issues: The main issue was whether the road construction project qualifies under PMGSY-III based on the population and infrastructure criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the PIL was filed for personal motives and not genuine public interest, emphasizing the need for judicial caution in such matters.
Result: The present PIL stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.
2. This petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is filed by the petitioner challenging the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 06.01.2023, vide No. EE/RWD/Lumla/NIT/PMGSY-III/41/2023-2024,-Package No.AR08/02/009, for construction of road from LT Road to Gomshing via Kungba upgradation (PMGSY-III), issued by the Executive Engineer/PIU, RWD, Lumla Division, Tawang District and the consequential award of contract, letter of acceptance and the detailed project report in respect of the said work.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the tender for construction of road from LT Road to Gomshing via Kungba upgradation (PMGSY-III) is being undertaken under PMGSY-III, although the selected road does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for selection of a road under PMGSY-III. The project is being undertaken as a Major Rural Link(MRL) road under PMGSY-III, however, if the selection of a road under PMGSY-III is based on the utility value of the eligible road computed on the basis of population served by the road and market, educational, medical and transport infrastructure facilities connected by the concerned road, then, according to the petitioner,the Gomshing village does not qualify for construction of such road even for one criteria as no people are residing nor there is any infrastructure in the said village.
4. Petitioner contends that population of 282 shown for construction of the said road are the residents of Kungba village as no one resides at Gomshing village. In fact, the Gomshing cannot be categorized as village as no one resides at Gomshing nor there is any infrastructure. According to the petitioner, therefore, there is no requirement of any connectivity for the Gomshing village under PMGSY-III, which seeks connectivity of Gramin Agricultural Market, School or Hospital.
5. Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the objective of PMGSY-III submits that PMGSY-III provides for consolidation of the existing Rural road network by upgradation of existing through routes and Major Rural Links connecting habitations to gramin agricultural markets, Higher Secondary Schools and hospitals. The selection of road under PMGSY-III is based on the utility value of the eligible road computed on the basis of the population served by the road and market, education, medical and transport infrastructure facilities connected by the concerned road. He submits that the detailed project report of the project in question reveals that two villages, viz., Kungba and Gomshing falling under Lumla-Zemithang CD-Block in Tawang District will be the beneficiary of the proposed road. It has been projected that two habitations having population of over 282 population would be connected directly and further, it will further connect them to the marketing center at Lumla, the ADC Administrative Headquarter, which are totally false.
6. Mr. Taloh, learned counsel, submits that there is not even a proper road per se, which can be characterized as a Through Route (TR) or a Major Rural Link (MRL), between Kungba village &Gomshing. Therefore, there is no question of upgradation of a non-existing road. The construction project is being undertaken as a Major Rural Link (MRL) road under PMGSY-III, however, if the selection of a road under PMGSY-III is based on the utility value of the eligible road computed on the basis of the population served by the road and market, educational, medical and transport infrastructure facilities connected by the concerned road then Gomshing does not qualify in even one of the criteria as there are neither people residing nor it has any of the aforementioned infrastructures. He further submits that the 282 (two hundred eighty-two) population are residents of Kungba village and no one resides at Gomshing. Gomshing is already conn
Public Interest Litigations must address genuine public grievances and not personal vendettas, as emphasized by the court.
The judgment emphasizes the need for PILs to be genuinely in the public interest and not for private or political motives, and highlights the imposition of exemplary costs as a deterrent against friv....
The PMGSY guidelines require strict adherence to procedures for land availability and project documentation, and failure to comply can invalidate tender processes.
Public authorities have a duty to initiate infrastructure development when justified, especially in public interest cases.
Public interest litigation cannot be used to direct construction affecting private property rights without legal basis.
Public Interest Litigations should protect collective rights, but courts must ensure that they are not used for proxy litigation by unqualified parties.
Point of Law : Unless arbitrariness or mala fide on part of the tendering authority is alleged, expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to....
Judicial review in matters of road alignment is limited; courts defer to expert recommendations unless clear violations of law or mala fides are demonstrated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
