Sh. Rajinder Singh Rana vs State Of H.P. And Others Reported ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3985 HP

                       REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA




                                                        .
             ON THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021





                            BEFORE

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                              &
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA


                CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4353 of 2020

    Between:-

    1.

         SH. RAJINDER SINGH RANA,

         S/O LATE SH. HOSHIAR SINGH,
         R/O VILLAGE & P.O. AMB PATHIAR,

         TEHSIL-JWALAMUKHI,
         DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.
         UP-PRADHAN,
         GRAM PANCHAYAT,


         AMB-PATHIAR.

    2.   SMT. NIRMALA DEVI,
         W/O LATE SH. VINOD RANA,




         VILLAGE-DHANOT,
         PO ADHWANI,
         TEHSIL JWALAMUKHI,





         DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.
         PRADHAN GRAM PANCHAYAT,
         DHANOT.





    3.   SH. AJAY SHARMA,
         S/O LATE SH. AMAR NATH SHARMA,
         VILLAGE BALHYA,
         PO KOHALA,
         TEHSIL JWALA MUKHI,
         DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.
         PRADHAN, GRAM PANCHAYAT,
         KAMLOT.

    4.   SH. PRADEEP KUMAR,
         S/O SH. KANSHI RAM,
         VILLAGE HIRAN,




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:54:12 :::CIS
                              2




          PO KOHALA,
          TEHSIL JWALA MUKHI,
          DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.,




                                                      .
          PRADHAN, GRAM PANCHAYAT,





          HIRAN.

    5.    SMT. BHAWNA SOOD,
          W/O SH. ANISH SOOD,





          R/O WARD NO.3 ,
          MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,
          JWALAMUKHI,
          TEHSIL JWALAMUKHI,
          DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.,





          PRESIDENT MC JWALAMUKHI.

    6.    DHARMENDER KUMAR,
          S/O LATE SH. SHAMBHOO GOPAL,

          R/O WARD NO. 2,
          MC JWALAMUKHI,

          TEHSIL JWALAMUKHI,
          DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.                   ......PETITIONERS

    (BY SH. K.S. BANYAL,


    SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
    SH. A.K. SHARMA AND
    SH. VIJENDER KATOCH,
    ADVOCATES)




    AND





    1.    STATE OF H.P.,
          THROUGH SECRETARY HEALTH,
          GOVT. HIMACHAL PRADESH,





          SHIMLA-2.

    2.    PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
          TO GOVT. OF H.P.,
          SHIMLA-2.

    3.    CHIEF ENGINEER NORTH,
          PWD AT DHARAMSHALA,
          DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.

    4.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:54:12 :::CIS
                                 3




         DIVN. DEHRA,
         DISTT.- KANGRA, H.P.




                                                     .
    5.   M/S BALDEV KUMAR,





         GOVT. CONTRACTOR,
         VILLAGE & PO BANURI,
         TEHSIL PALAMPUR,
         DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.





         (CONTRACTOR TO WHOM WORK
         HAS BEEN AWARDED FOR THE
         CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL
         ACCOMMODATION FOR
         CIVIL HOSPITAL AT JWALAMUKHI,





         DISTT.- KANGRA, H.P.

    6.   SH. JATINDER PAL DUTT,
         S/O SH. THAKUR DASS,

         VILLAGE HIRAN,
         P.O. KOHALA,

         TEHSIL JWALAMUKHI,
         DISTT. KANGRA,
         H.P.                                  ......RESPONDENTS


    (SH.ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL
    WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA,
    SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
    SH. HEMANSHU MISRA,




    SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS AND
    SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR,





    DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL,
    FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4)





    (SH. AJAY SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
    WITH SH. AMIT JAMWAL, ADVOCATE,
    FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

    (SH. BHUVNESH SHARMA AND
    SH. RAMAKANT SHARMA, ADVOCATES,
    FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)


    Reserved On: 11.08.2021

    Decided On:   18.08.2021.




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:54:12 :::CIS
                                          4




                 This petition coming on for orders                       this day,

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the




                                                                    .

    following:

                              ORDER

This is a pro bono publico petition filed on behalf

of the elected representatives and one social worker for

grant of the following reliefs:-

"(i) That the respondent No.3 and 4 may very kindly be directed to get the construction of additional

accommodation started on a digged site marked with

florescent colour 'B' according to tender work awarded vide annexure P-5 to respondent No.5 dated 12.10.2017.

(ii) That the respondent No.5 may very kindly be directed to complete the work of additional accommodation Civil Hospital Jwalamukhi awarded to

him vide Annexure P-5 in a shortest possible time,

failing which the respondent No.5 should be black listed for his acts of omission and commission.

(iii) That the respondent No.3 and 4 may very

kindly be directed to get the work allotted to respondent No.5 vide Annexure P-5 without any change of block site, and it should be on the original approved site contour plan in the ends of justice and also without changing any facility especially mortuary provided in the original site plan in the basement of the block.

(iv) That respondent No.2 may very kindly be directed to take stern action against the defaulting

officers who is directly responsible in not getting the additional accommodation constructed and completed

.

within time frame provided in Annexure P-5.

(v) That the entire record i.e. original approved site plan and contour plan of the Civil Hospital Jwalamukhi be summoned for an appropriate adjudication of the

matter in public interest."

2. It is averred that vide Office Order dated

21.02.2014, respondent No.1 ordered the upgradation and

opening of various health institutions in public interest

which included the upgradation of Community Health

Centre,Jwalamukhi to 50 bedded Civil Hospital. The Civil

Hospital was thereafter again upgraded to 100 beds and for

this purpose even posts were sanctioned. Not only this,

respondent No.1 conveyed an administrative approval of

Rs.10,84,57,000/- and the same was sanctioned in October,

2017, for construction of 100 bedded additional

accommodation. This work after completion of all

procedural formalities was awarded to 5 th respondent.

However, since then much progress has not been achieved,

save and except, the work of digging at site about 30 mtrs

x 13mtrs and 11 feet deep, has been done, hence this

petition.

3. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed the reply

wherein the factual position has not been disputed and it is

.

averred that after the site development work had been

started by respondent No.5 and while the cutting of earth

was being done, then the site was rejected on technical

grounds by a Committee empowered by the Government.

Secondly, the site was touching the National Highway which

could be widened to four lane in the near future, therefore,

the work was stopped by respondent No.5 because it was

proposed to change the site.

4. A Committee was framed by the Government to

finalize the new site. The new site was finalized adjoining

to old site within the same campus and respondent No.5-

Contractor had mobilized its resources to start the work

adjoining the old site within the same campus, but in the

meantime, the petitioners had filed the present petition

and obtained the status quo orders.

5. As regards the merits of the case, the

respondents have reiterated the submissions already made

in the preliminary submissions.

6. To similar effect is the reply filed on behalf of

respondent No.5.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and gone through the material placed on record.

.

8. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the

petitioners appear to be irked because of non-completion

of the project of great public importance. There are no

allegations of mala fides or even for that matter the

allegations of impropriety or breach of provisions of law.

9. Even though, in ordinary circumstances, it would

not lie within the jurisdiction and competence of this Court

to go into the question as to whether there has been any

undue delay in execution of the project. However, since this

is a public interest litigation petition, we would venture to

go into this question.

10. It would be noticed that the Hospital was earlier

functioning as a Community Health Centre (CHC) adjoining

to the main Bus-stand, Jwalamukhi and was shifted to the

old building of 'Matri Chhaya/Yatri Niwas' on 22.06.2013 in

compliance to the directions of the Government dated

24.04.2013 and 20.05.2013.

11. One Krishan Dass along with others filed Civil

Writ Petition No. 8148 of 2013 against shifting of CHC,

Jwalamukhi to this place i.e. 'Matri Chhaya' building located

in Jwalamukhi town. This writ petition was dismissed by this

Court as misconceived. Thus, the CHC remained functional

.

in the 'Matri Chhaya' building and later on it was this CHC

which was upgraded to 50 bedded hospital and then

eventually Rs.10,84,57,000/- were sanctioned for the

construction of 100 bedded additional block at the Civil

Hospital, Jwalamukhi (Matri Chhaya) which after completion

of all codal formalities resulted in awarding of tender r in

favour of 5th respondent.

12. It is not in dispute that 5th respondent

commenced the work by cutting/carrying out excavation at

the site. However, thereafter the Director, Health Services,

wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, to

examine the feasibility of shifting back the Civil Hospital

Jwalamukhhi from Temple trust building (Matri Chhaya) to

its original place vide its letter dated 06.09.2018. He also

requested that the concerned SDM and Executive Engineer,

HPPWD, Division Dehra, be directed to make convenient to

attend the Civil Hospital, Jwalamukhi on 10.09.2018 at

10.00 A.M. along with necessary record for their opinion.

13. Subsequently, the proposal for construction of

Civil Hospital building, Jwalamukhi was revised due to

shifting the site in the same campus keeping in view the

existing structure on the recommendation of the Standing

.

Committee as constituted by the Government vide

Notification dated 20.07.2019. The Standing Committee

earlier held a meeting on 08.07.2019.

14. Thereafter, respondents No. 3 and 4 prepared

the revised drawing/site plan as well as preliminary

estimate amounting to Rs.14,25,07,000/- as per the

guidelines of the Govt. vide Notification dated 20.07.2019

and recommended for getting final administrative approval

and expenditure sanction from the competent authorities.

15. Respondent No.1 conveyed revised

administrative approval amounting to Rs.14,25,07 lac vide

office letter dated 22.08.2020 after completion of all codal

formalities and the same was conveyed to respondent No.4

through proper channel. An administrative approval and

expenditure sanction amounting to Rs. 1084.57 lacs was

accorded by respondent No.1 for the construction of 100

bedded hospital building during October, 2017.

16. This building was proposed to be constructed

adjoining the existing 'Matri Chhaya' building where the

CHC was earlier shifted during 2013. The Public Works

Department was assigned the job to construct this

building being the premium building and road construction

.

agency of the State Govt.

17. After completion of all codal formalities, the

work was awarded to respondent No.5 by respondent No.4

for an overall amount of Rs.5,18,28,910/- vide its letter

dated 12.10.2017.

18. Finally, when the site was handed over, the

contractor started cutting/excavation of earth to clear the

site and in this process, he dug the site 30 mtrs x 13 mtrs

app. 11 feet deep. The MLA, Jwalamukhi Constituency

visited the site of work on 02.01.2018 along with

respondent No.4, SDM and Tehsildar, Jwalamukhi. A copy of

letter dated 09.01.2018 of Assistant Engineer, HPPWD, Sub

Division, Jwalamukhi addressed to respondent No.4.

19. During the visit of MLA, Jwalamukhi, people of

the area requested to change the site of this 100 bedded

hospital. Subsequently, on 07.01.2018, the construction

work of this 100 bedded hospital was inspected by the

Health and Family Welfare Minister, H.P., along with the

local MLA, Jwalamukhi. The people of the area again raised

the issue that the proposed site of this 100 bedded hospital

was located at a far off place from the main bus stand,

hence, the people would find it difficult to come and get

.

back as they will have to pay additional money on

account of the transportation charges.

20. Another issue that was raised by the people

that the proposed site for 100 bedded hospital was located

adjoining the 'Matri Chhaya' building just touching the

boundaries of the National Highway 503 and, therefore,

the proposed building would experience continuous noise

pollution and vibrational effects which would create

disturbance to the patients and the para medial staff.

21. It was also in the proposal that this National

Highway was to be upgraded to four lanning project and its

widening in near future could create a serious threat to

this hospital building. Therefore, respondent No.5 had to

stop the work at the excavation stage as the new site was

being proposed. In this context, respondent No.4 wrote a

letter to the CMO, Dharamshala vide letter dated

09.01.2018.

22. Thereafter, the MLA Jwalamukhi, in consultation

with the local people proposed the same construction site

from where the CHC had earlier been shifted during 2013

i.e. near the existing Mini Sect. Building adjoining the under

construction parking complex Jwalamukhi where this

.

hospital was earlier functioning as CHC till 2013.

Consequently, respondent No.4 prepared a fresh contour

site plan of this newly proposed site for the construction of

100 bedded hospital and sent the same for approval to the

Chief Medical Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala vide letter

dated 15.01.2018, but, nothing was conveyed by the CMO,

Dharamshala in this regard. Respondent No.4 again sent a

reminder to CMO, Dharamshala to convey his decision

regarding the shifting of hospital with a copy to the Director

Health Services, H.P., Shimla.

23. The Superintending Engineer 9th Circle, HPPWD,

Nurpur, vide its office letter dated 10.07.2018 also wrote

to the Director, Health Services, H.P., Shimla, to clarify the

decision regarding continuing of work of the 100 bedded

hospital at the present site or to shift this building to

another site, so that the work awarded to the Contractor

could be closed to avoid any legal complications.

24. The Additional Director, Health Services, H.P. vide

its office letter dated 6th September, 2018, addressed to

the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala with a

copy to the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala

and to the Assistant Controller (F&A) office of the H&FW

.

"conveyed that the Government has desired and requested

this Directorate to examine the feasibility of shifting back

the Civil Hospital, Jwalamukhi from Temple Trust to its

original place (near Bus Stand) which was earlier shifted

by the Government to 'Matri Chhaya' Temple Trust building

on 22.06.2013 after recommendation of r Committee

constituted by your good office vide letter dated

27.02.2018.

In order to revert the said Civil Hospital to its

original place the Committee constituted for the same shall

visit Jwalamukhi on 10th September in order to examine the

feasibility of the same along with assessment of financial

and infrastructural requirements. It is, therefore,

requested that the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate

and Executive Engineer, HPPWD, be directed to make

convenient to attend the Civil Hospital Jwalamukhi on 10 th

September, 2018 at 10.00 a.m. along with necessary record

so that their opinion could also be taken into consideration

for the above said purpose".

25. The copies of this letter were also circulated to

the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. for

.

information and necessary compliance and to the Assistant

Controller (F&A) office of the H&FW, H.P., for information

and with the direction to ensure his presence as a

Committee Member on the above mentioned scheduled

date and time at Civil Hospital, Jwalamukhi, District Kangra.

26. The r Additional District Magistrate further

conveyed the matter to SDM, Jwalamukhi and to

respondent No.4 to remain present in the meeting on the

scheduled date and time along with the relevant record vide

its letter dated 07.09.2018. Aggrieved with this situation,

respondent No.5 represented to respondent No.4 vide its

letter dated 17.02.2018. However, the new site could not

be finalized and thus respondent No.5 had to stop the work

and the matter regarding finalization of the site remained

indecisive for a long time.

27. The Additional Chief Secretary (Health) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh constituted a Committee

vide notification dated 20.07.2019 to finalize the basic

requirements of the proposed building and to evaluate the

utility with specified aspects. The meeting of the above

Committee was held on 16.07.2020 in the office of the

Chief Medical Officer, Kangra. The Committee

.

recommended as under:-

"As per verbal directions by the higher authorities the

Committee reconsidered and revised architectural drawings after inspecting the selected site for new building being underground water logging at the site where some digging has been carried out, due to

change the plinth area had increased with cost escalation with the provision of the GST as applicable. As a follow up of this meeting, another meeting was

held on 08.08.2019 to check the feasibility of the site

proposed by the above Committee for the construction of 100 bedded hospital and the following Officers participated in this meeting:-

1. Chief Medical Officer, Kangra.

2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jwalamukhi.

3. Executive Engineer, HPPWD Dehra.

4.Senior Architect Kangra Zone at Dharamshala.

5. BMO Jwalamukhi.

6. Tehsildar Jwalamukhi."

28. As per the proceedings of this meeting, it was

concluded as under:-

"The above committee members agreed with the suggested alternative site in the same campus adjoining the existing Hospital building.

After finalization of this site, respondent No.4 had to send the case to receive revised administrative

.

approval and expenditure sanction vide letter dated

23.10.2020.

Accordingly, the architectural drawings were modified to incorporate a new changes as per the changed

grounds conditions. Provisions of all the desired facilities as approved by the Health Authorities were provided in the new architect drawings."

29.

The above Committee members agreed with the

suggested alternative site in the same campus

the existing Hospital building. After finalization of this site, adjoining

respondent No.4 had to send the case to receive revised

administrative approval and expenditure sanction vide his

office letter No. 7009-12 dated 23.10.2020. Accordingly,

the architectural drawings were modified to incorporate a

few changes as per the changed ground conditions.

Provisions of all the desired facilities as approved by the

Health Authorities were provided in the new architectural

drawings. However, before respondent No.5 could start the

work, the same was stayed whereby the respondents were

directed to maintain status quo vis-a-vis the approved

apposite plans.

30. The aforesaid narration of the facts would go to

show that there has been no intentional or deliberate

.

inaction on the part of the respondents in commencing

with the work of proposed hospital accommodation. Even

though the same has been considerably delayed, but the

respondents are not to be blamed for the same.

31. Having set out the factual background and

present status regarding construction, we may now advert

to the legal issue regarding the scope of judicial review in

such cases.

32. It is more than settled that choosing a site for a

hospital, school, colleges etc. is a policy matter and,

therefore, should normally be not interfered with by the

Courts.

33. A similar question relating to opening of a Govt.

College came up for consideration before the learned

Division Bench of this Court (of which I was one of the

members) in CWP No. 621 of 2014 titled Nand Lal and

another vs. State of H.P. and others reported in 2014

(2) HLR (DB) 982 where the petitioners therein had

challenged the decision of the Government to open a

Government Degree College at Diggal on the ground that

the same should be opened at Ramshehar (Nalagarh)

because the Panchayats of the area of Ramshehar had

.

made demand for sanctioning and opening of the College at

Ramshehar which was more feasible and centrally located.

This Court held as under:

"4. Heard. The moot question for consideration in

this writ petition is-whether the petitioners can question the decision made by the Government for opening a Government Post Graduate College at Diggal, District Solan?

5. During the process of consideration of the issue,

the residents of various Gram Panchayats of Ramshehar area made resolution(s) and represented to the Government for sanctioning and opening a Degree

College at Ramshehar (Nalagarh), District Solan, instead of at Diggal, District Solan. After considering all the documents and keeping in view the policy-norms,

governing the field, the respondents made decision to

open the said college at Diggal.

6. The petitioners are aggrieved for the reason that the State Government has not made decision in

accordance with the facts, their contentions read with norms and policy.

7. It is a beaten law of land that Government decision and policy cannot be subject matter of a writ petition, unless its arbitrariness is shown in the decision making process.

8. It is averred that Panchayats of the area of Ramshehar have made demand for sanctioning and

opening the said college at the said place, which is centrally located and is feasible also.

.

9. The Apex Court in Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar

Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 AIR SCW 1399, has laid down the guidelines and held that Courts should not interfere in policy decision of the

Government, unless there is arbitrariness on the face of it.

10. The Apex Court in a latest decision reported in

Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 616, also held that interference by the Court on the ground of efficacy of the policy is not

permissible. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of

thesaid decision as under:

"14. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The

impugned policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices."

14. The Apex Court in the case titled as Mrs. Asha

Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that policy decision cannot be quashed on the ground that another

decision would have been more fair, wise, scientific or logical and in the interest of society. It is apt to reproduce para 10 herein:

"10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another

decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logic. The principle of

.

reasonableness and nonarbitrariness in

governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts

and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [(2000) 8 SCC 262 : (AIR

2000 SC 3313)]."

15. It appears that the respondents have examined all aspects and made the decision. Thus, it cannot be

said that the decision making process is bad. The Court

can not sit in appeal and examine correctness of policy decision. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another versus Adikanda Biswal and others, reported in (2012)

11 SCC 731 laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment herein:

"19. We are of the view that the High Court was

not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court

confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision

.

making authority exceeded its power, committed

an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers."

34. The law on the subject was again reiterated in

CWP No. 4044/2015 titled Gramin Janta Kalyan Samiti,

Kuthera vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on

28.03.2016. This case related to the shifting of Gram

Panchayat, Kuthera to village Kuthera from Makriri.

35. In CWP No. 3862 of 2014 titled Surinder

Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on

15.07.2015, the issue therein was that the Sub Division had

been created at Jole in Tehsil Bangana in District Una with

the prayer that the same be set up at Chowki Minar in

Tehsil Bangana, District Una.

36. It is more than settled that in the policy matters

which are in the exclusive discretion, domain and

jurisdiction of the State, the Courts are loath to interfere in

such policy decisions of the Government which if taken with

myriad of facts merely because it is not to the liking of the

petitioner, they cannot invite the Courts to interfere in

such matters except on limited grounds i.e. if it is not found

on well settled grounds like the decision is arbitrary,

.

malafide and unreasonable or irrational.

37. The Government is always entitled to make

pragmatic adjustments and policy decision(s) which may be

necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar

circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy

decision taken by the Government merely because it feels

that another decision would have been more fairer or wise

or more scientific or logical. The principle of reasonableness

and non-arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of

our constitutional scheme and structure and its

interpretation will always depend upon the facts and

circumstances of a given case.

38. The decision of the Government to commence

the construction of the hospital at another site cannot be

termed to be capricious or not informed by reasons or

formed on ipse dixit of the respondents. It is not within the

domain of any of the Courts to weigh the pros and cons of

the policy, except as observed above, where it is arbitrary

or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other

provisions of law. The Court would dissociate itself from

entering into the realm of policy which belongs to the

Executive.

.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no

merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending

application(s), if any also stand disposed of.

40. However, before parting, it needs to be

observed that since the work of execution of project was

awarded nearly four years back on 12.10.2017 and no

material progress has been achieved, therefore, in the

given facts and circumstances, we hope and trust that the

respondents would execute the work as expeditiously as

possible and in no event beyond the period set out in the

tender.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

18th August, 2021.

(krt)