The has dismissed a (PIL) filed against the (), effectively clearing the way for the construction of a one-way underpass at the Purani Chungi Junction on Ajmer Road. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain ruled that courts must exercise significant restraint when is invoked to challenge purely commercial tender matters. The bench clarified that in the absence of manifest or , the judiciary should refrain from substituting its expertise for that of technical authorities.
The litigation, initiated by petitioner Gyanesh Kumar Sharma, sought to quash the ’s tender notice dated , and demanded a fresh comprehensive Techno-Economic Feasibility Study and Flood Risk Assessment. The petitioner contended that the project, estimated to cost approximately ₹19.18 crore, was technically unsound, citing potential drainage issues and conflicts with existing underground infrastructure. The petition further alleged that the proposed design contradicted the ’s internal feasibility reports and disregarded directives allegedly issued by the state’s Chief Minister regarding a reassessment of traffic loads.
In its defense, the argued that the design was the result of a rigorous, data-backed engineering evaluation. The authority maintained that it had conducted a comprehensive three-day, 24-hour traffic survey, utilizing passenger car unit peak-hour volume analysis provided by consultants. According to the , the project was designed to address grade-level cross-weaving congestion at the Purani Chungi triangle. Furthermore, the authorities asserted that technical safeguards, including ground-penetrating radar for utility mapping and automated heavy-duty pumping infrastructure linked to the Dravyavati drainage system, had been fully integrated into the project execution plan to mitigate flooding risks.
The court’s decision leaned heavily on established precedents regarding the limited scope of in matters concerning government contracts and infrastructure projects. The bench noted that the petitioner was not a participant in the tender process, raising significant questions regarding the maintainability of a PIL in a purely commercial context. Relying on rulings from the , the bench emphasized that a PIL is not intended to be a tool for challenging economic decisions or financial policy taken by the government in the exercise of its .
"The question of
in the matter of awarding the contract has been considered by this Court in
. This Court, after review of law on the point, has made following observations in para 88 of the judgment:
was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power,"
the court noted.
The bench further addressed the necessity of allowing executive bodies the freedom to make technical policy decisions without the threat of constant legal intervention. By citing the landmark case of , the court reiterated that infrastructure projects—specifically road construction—should not be stayed by constitutional courts, as such interference causes significant delays and administrative burdens that ultimately impact the public interest.
The judges observed,
"The decision to construct the underpass, for which the administrative and technical approval was granted by the
on
, constitutes valid binding statutory sanction under the provisions of
. As such, the decision of the
to construct the underpass at the impugned place is well considered executive policy decision of the
and in view of the decision of the
in the matter of N.G. Projects Limited."
The ruling highlights the judiciary’s firm stance against utilizing the route to "pick holes" in tender conditions where the authority itself is the best judge of its technological and infrastructure requirements. The court clarified that the role of the constitutional court is to review the legality and fairness of the decision-making process, rather than to sit as an appellate body over the technical merits of the project.
"The modern trend points to
in
. The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision,"
the bench stated, referencing the principles laid down in
.
The petitioner had further alleged that the project’s progression despite conflicting reports amounted to a breach of the . However, the presented evidence that it had followed all mandatory procedures, including securing approval from the , which satisfied the statutory requirements under the Act, 1982. The court found that no material evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that the construction was contrary to the public interest or that it was the result of a mala fide exercise of power.
By dismissing the petition, the court has effectively allowed the to proceed with its original implementation plan for the Purani Chungi underpass. The order leaves all parties to bear their own costs, ending the legal uncertainty that had stalled the project’s commencement. This outcome serves as a significant signal to future litigants that administrative decisions in infrastructure development, when supported by expert evaluation and statutory backing, will receive strong judicial deference, ensuring that public works projects are not unnecessarily hindered by third-party legal challenges. The case underscores the balance between ensuring government transparency and protecting the freedom of administrative authorities to execute projects essential for urban development and traffic management. With the litigation now closed, the focus moves entirely to the execution phase of the underpass, which is expected to address the chronic traffic congestion reported at one of the city's critical junctions. The is now positioned to move forward with the tender award and construction phases without further judicial intervention.
judicial restraint - tender disputes
