Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Karol, ACJ and Sandeep Sharma, J. directed the authorities to take necessary action and resolve the grievances of the petitioner.

The PIL by way of a letter has been addressed to the Court wherein it was alleged that the house provided to petitioner was in danger due to unscientific digging which was being carried out by people living adjacent to his house.

Consequently, the Court directed the authorities to look into the matter and redress the same by taking strict action against the violators. Subsequent to the directions given by the Court the spot was inspected and it was found that no fresh digging took place in the respective area and the apprehension expressed in the petition was taken care of by the construction of retaining wall by Public Works Department together with the issue regarding supply of water along the replacing the problematic tap.

Accordingly, as the grievances expressed in the letter have been duly resolved, thus the petition was disposed of. [State of H.P. (Unscientific Digging Matter), In re, CWPIL No. 154 of 2017, decided on 14-12-2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The petitioner, who challenged the eligibility of Respondent 5 to participate in the Tender process, was left high and dry when the Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta, CJ and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. held that the Court in exercise of judicial review, will not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision taken by a committee of experts.

The eligibility of the said respondent to participate in the Tender for upgradation of Raipur-Sitapur-Paani Road was challenged by the petitioner. The alleged ground for the challenge was that Respondent 5 did not meet one of the conditions to participate in the process, viz. execution of the contractual works of the specified quantity during the last 5 years. The Chief Engineer, PWD (Rewa Division) sought information from Respondent 5 regarding the same but even before his response, the decision declaring him eligible for participating in the tender process was taken. The petitioner submitted that the decision of the respondents was arbitrary, irrational and unsustainable.

The High Court heard the parties and found no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondents. The Court held that “The question: as to whether the bidder is technically qualified or not, is a decision taken by the experts. Since the experts have taken a decision that Respondent 5 is eligible to carry out the work advertised, therefore, this Court in exercise of judicial review will not sit as a court of appeal over the decision taken by the committee of experts.” The Court found no merit in the petition which was accordingly dismissed. [TBCL Shiv Shakti Construction Co. (Joint Venture) v. State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine MP 351, dated 14-5-2018]