SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 34265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Gyanesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 15497/2026 CNR: RJHC020762702026 |



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:43698-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 15497/2026 CNR: RJHC020762702026 | URN: CW / 32943U / 2026 Gyanesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of S-1, C-43, Fortune Comfort Residency, T.c. Nagar, Gokulpura, Khirni Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Jaipur Development Authority (Jda), Through Its Commissioner, Jda Complex, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Director (Engineering-I), Jaipur Development Authority, Jda Complex, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

4. The Additional Chief Engineer (Zone-6), Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.

5. The Executive Engineer, Zone-7, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Public Information Officer For The Subject Rti Application).

6. Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, (First Appellate Authority For The Subject Under Right To Information Act, 2005)

7. Chief Executive Officer, M/s Thoughts Consultants Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., D-13, Shanti Path, Patrakar Colony, Sector 5, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004

8. Managing Director, M/s Rajputana Electric Trading Corp.

And Rkb (Jv), 77, Usha Vihar, Sanskrit College Road, Near Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RB Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sara Parveen For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri with Ms. Pinky P. Paliwal, Mr. Ayush Sharma Ms. Shikha Sharma on behalf of Mr. GS Gill, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

##PAGE2##

Order

27/10/2026

1. Petitioner-Gyanesh Kumar Sharma has filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking writ/appropriate direction quashing and setting aside the impugned tender notice dated 06.03.2026, issued by the respondent No.2-Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘the JDA’) for construction of the one-way underpass at the Purani Chungi Junction, Ajmer Road, Jaipur and for restraining the respondents from proceeding with the same. The petitioner further seeks writ directing the respondents to conduct a fresh, comprehensive Techno-Economic Feasibility Study and Flood Risk Assessment in respect of any proposed underpass/road improvement work at Purani Chungi Junction, Ajmer Road, Jaipur in a transparent manner and also to quash the further tender process for that work.

2. It is the case of the PIL petitioner that though the proposed construction of one-way underpass at Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur involves expenditure of around Rs.19.18 crores, yet the project is being proceeded with despite serious technical, drainage, safety and financial concerns emerging from the feasibility report of respondent No.2 itself and the direction in which the underpass has ultimately been tendered, is contrary to the traffic data and the recommendations contained in the said feasibility report, as according to the said feasibility report itself, the proposed underpass is ‘technically unsuitable’ on account of it being located in a flood-prone area, its serious clash with existing infrastructure and a negative cost-benefit outcome and, therefore, the comprehensive Techno-Economic Feasibility Study and Flood Risk Assessment be carried out before proceeding further.

##PAGE3##

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Hon’ble Chief Minister has specifically directed reassessment of the traffic load and preparation of a fresh feasibility report, yet the tender process has been floated without disclosure of any fresh assessment. Though various complaints have been made but NIT has not been done and the tender process is being proceeded further.

4. A return has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6 stating, inter alia, that the proposed construction has been finalized after rigorous data-backed engineering evaluations and the petitioner’s

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top