The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging construction of a one-way underpass at the Purani Chungi Junction, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, opining that unless the decision was shown to be arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, malafide or illegal, the courts had to exercise restraint where public interest jurisdiction was invoked in contractual and tender matters.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain observed that the decision to construct the underpass was taken based on the administrative and technical approval granted by the Public Works Committee, which was a valid binding statutory sanction.

For context, the Court was hearing a PIL seeking quashing of the tender notice issued by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) for the construction, and directions to conduct a fresh comprehensive Techno-Economic Feasibility Study and Flood Risk Assessment of the project.

The petitioner contended that the construction presented serious technical, drainage, safety and financial concerns, as were apparent from the feasibility report of the JDA itself that also reflected the project to be “technically unsuitable” for being a in a flood-prone area.

Further, it was argued that the Chief Minister had also directed reassessment of the traffic load and preparation of a fresh feasibility report. Despite this background, the tender process was floated without any fresh assessment.

The counsel also submitted that the decision to construct in contrast to the feasibility report was violative of Article 14, and the expenditure of Rs. 19.18 crores of public money on such structure was colourable exercise of power and breach of public trust doctrine.

On the contrary, the State argued that the project was undertaken based on administrative and technical approval by the PWC, a statutory sanction which could not be overridden by the non-statutory bodies like Traffic Control Board.

Further, the State submitted that the choice of engineering, design, traffic flow, management etc. fell exclusively within the executive policy domain of statutory bodies, and the court must refrain from providing their judgment.

After hearing the contentions, the Court firstly highlighted that the petitioner was not someone who had participated in the tender process, and in relation to the question of whether a stranger could challenge a purely commercial contract, by filing a PIL, the Court perused certain Supreme Court decisions, and observed,

“…Courts must exercise restraint where public interest jurisdiction is invoked in contractual and tender matters, and that such a petition ought not to be entertained unless the decision under challenge is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, malafide or illegal.”

“…commercial tender matters involve an element of commercial competitiveness, and that constitutional courts are not appellate authorities to scrutinise as to whom the tender should be awarded, hence the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements.”

The Court further opined that judicial review under Article 226 examined the legality and fairness of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision.

It was highlighted that the decision was taken based on PWC's approvals which were necessary sanctions under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. Hence, JDA's decision to construct the underpass was a well-considered executive policy decision.

The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court decision in Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa & Ors. in which it was held that the constitutional courts should not interfere with technical evaluations, if the executive action was bona fide and in public interest.

In this background, the Court held that there was no material brought on record to show that the proposed project was contrary to public interest.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.