Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishore Samrite vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2014
W.P. No.10027/2014
15.10.2014
Shri Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Addl. Advocate General with
Shri A.K. Shukla, counsel for the respondents/State.
Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for the respondent No.5.
Heard counsel for the parties.
This petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation to issue directions to the respondents to expeditiously install Mobile Goods Scanners at border check post of the State of Madhya Pradesh and further to conduct inquiry into the laxity of the concerned persons and Authorities in not installing the same within three years after execution of the contract.
The petitioner proceeds on the assumption that the State Government has decided to install twenty four scanners at different locations. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Annexure-P/2, in our opinion, is misplaced if not ill advised. That is a communication sent by the BOT Contractor - respondent No.5 to respondent No.6. It was obviously a private arrangement outside the contractual terms executed between the respondent No.5 - BOT Contractor and the State Government. The contract between the respondent No.5 and the State Government, no doubt, mentions about installation of one Mobile Goods Scanner. But, after due deliberations, the Authorities are contemplating to do away with that part of the contract while retaining the other contract as it is for administrative reasons. The fact remains that as of today even going by the contract executed between the respondent No.5 and the State, it is for installation of only one Mobile Goods Scanner.
As a result, the relief as claimed by the petitioner is devoid of merits inasmuch as whether the State should contract for installation of "twenty four Mobile Goods Scanners" or only one is purely an administrative decision and the Court cannot sit over that decision as a Court of appeal. It would have been a different matter if the statutory provision mandated installation of such scanner at every location. That is not the case of the petitioner.
It is not necessary for us to examine the preliminary objection taken by the respondent No.3 about the locus of the petitioner and in particular that the petition filed by him is frivolous, vexatious and motivated one.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Shantanu Kemkar)
Chief Justice Judge
snb/-