Disposed

Lakhsmi Singh Negi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC28 Jun 2017CWP/805/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition regarding a road construction project. The court cancelled the tender notice and directed authorities to consider petitioner's expert reports on road alignment within two months before making a final decision in public interest.

What did the court decide?

Tender notice cancelled; directed authorities to consider expert reports and decide on road alignment within two months.

Lakhsmi Singh Negi Vs State of Hp — Public Procurement and Tenders | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.805 of 2017 Date of decision: 28.6.2017

¶3

Lakhsmi Singh Negi ..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & others . Respondents

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the petitioner: Mr.B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Munish Datwalia, Advocate.

¶9

For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr.Anup Rattan, Mr.Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶10

Mr.Narender Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5.

¶11

¶12

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

¶13

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶14

“(a) Annexure P-10 may be ordered to be quashed and set aside by issuing writ of certiorari in the facts and circumstances enumerated herein above. (b) Writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondents not to use flood prone Nalah for the construction of road in dispute from point A to B i.e. Gotangnalah as shown in yellow color in digital map annexure P-1.”

¶15

Insofar as prayer (a) is concerned, we find that the

¶16

notice inviting tender stands cancelled.

¶17

¶18

Insofar as prayer (b) is concerned, petitioner contends that the reports of experts, so placed by him, suggest that the road through flood prone nalah from point A to B i.e. Gotangnalah cannot be constructed. We are of the considered view that construction of link road from Primary School, Kamru to Kamru village cannot be stopped. However, whether it is feasible to construct the road from the site from which the petitioner points out, is not for us to decide, but, for the expert(s) to consider and take a decision thereupon. We are sure that before taking such decision with regard to alignment of road, the respondent authorities shall consider and take into account the reports of experts, so submitted by the petitioner, including estimate Annexure P-C. We are sure that the authorities shall take into account the entire material and take such a decision which is, in fact, in public interest. As such, we direct the authorities to consider and take a decision within a period of two months from today and thereafter take all consequential actions for constriction of the road expeditiously. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of alongwith all pending applications, if any.

Lakhsmi Singh Negi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhsmi Singh Negi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Chand Vs State of Hp

Khub Chand Vs State of Hp

Kamla Devi Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board

Ms Rajinder Singh and Meena Kumari Vs State of Hp

Ms Narkanda Filling Station Vs Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner

Ms Gannon Dunkerley and Company Limited Vs Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-Cum-Appellate Authority