H5GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram Hon'ble ShriRajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. Petitioners ./ Respondents W.P. No. 4853/2005 1. Amerjit Bhagat, S/o Dakhlu Ram, aged about 42 years, MLA, Sitapur (CG), R/o Kenabandh Bauripara, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) 2. Jugal t^shor Sahu, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sahu, Aged about 45 years, Ex- President District Panchayat Parishad, District Raipur, R/o 55/165 Vailabh Nagar, Near Janannath Mandir Pachphedi Naka, Raipur (CG) 3. Chhatrapal Singh, S/o Durga Singh Sirmaura, Ex. Member District Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.). R/o Village Pathri, Tahsii & District - Raipur (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh - Through Secretary Panchayat and Rural Deveiopment Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) 2 Chief Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Raipur (CG) 3 Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) 4. Shri M.K. Raut, Secretary Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 5. Shri R.K. Khare, Ex-Chief Engineer PMGSY Scheme, R/o Qtr. No.44, Avanti Vihar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur 6. Shri M.L. Haldkar, Executive Engineer C.G.P.M.G. S.Y.S. Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTiTUTOIN OF INDIA Present: Shri P. Diwakar, Jearned Senior Counsel with Shri Adhiraj Surana, for the petitioners. r- Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate Generai for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 to 6. 1 ORDER gth (1Sm February, 2088) The foliowing judgment is passed by Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. They are heard on admission. The petitioners have filed this writ petition styled as 'Pubiic Interest Litigation' for the following reliefs: 7.1 That, the respondent authoritjes may be directed to atlot the work of supervision and quailty control to the technical staff appointed under PMGSY scheme. 7.2 That the respondents be directed that the percentage of project cost diverted to private persons/contractors in the name of quaiity control and supervision charges be reduced suitably. 7.3 That the funds diverted to the private persons in the name of supervision and quality control charges be directed to be recovered from the Respondents Officer's. 7.4 The respondents be directed to take the work fromtheir own staff which is being taken by the privatecontractors. 7.5 The respondents be directed to immediately stop the system of awarding the work to the private contractors. 7.6 Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioners in substance are seeking a direction to the respondents to ailot the work of supervision and quality control to technical staff appointed under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna Scheme and not to engage private persons/agencies for the said purpose. (3) For the supervision of construction of roads under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna Scheme the State Government in view of the shortage of engineering & technical staff took the policy decision in its meeting dated 9.3.2004 after considering the views expressed by the persons attending the meeting to entrust the work of supervision and quality control of the construction of roads to private persons/agencies. (4) Shri Diwakar, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehementiy argued that the State Government by engaging private persons/agencies for supervision and quality controi ofthe construction of roads under the scheme is unnecessarily diverting public funds to private persons/agencies. (5) Shri Vinay Harit, iearned Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 on the other hand, refemng to the facts mentloned in the counter affidavit, submitted that the State Government in view of the acute shortage of engineering and technicai staff required for the purposes of supervision and quality control ofthe construction of roads underthe scheme, had to take the decision to engage private persons/agencies for supervision and quality control of the construction of roads as it was the necessary requirement under the Scheme prescribed by the Asian Development Bank who had sponsored the scheme. 4 • (6). The decision to engage private persons/agendes for supervision and quality control of constructions of roads under the scheme is a 'Policy Decision' taken by the Government after considering ail the pros and cons. We, therefore; do not find any scope for interference in the 'Policy Decision' taken by the Government. (7). The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and js hereby dismissed summarily. (8). The security amount of Rs.2,000/- deposited by the petitioners be refunded to them. j~ Sd/-, Chief Justice Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge TC