Fundamental Right Of Citizen To Live In Hygienic & Unpolluted Environment: Rajasthan HC Takes Cognizance In Dravyavati River Project Completion
The Rajasthan High Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by the Jaipur Development Authority against the Commercial Court's Order.

The Rajasthan High Court while taking cognizance for completion of Dravyavati River Project, emphasised that it’s the fundamental right of every citizen to live in hygienic and unpolluted environment.
The Jaipur Bench was hearing a Writ Petition filed by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), challenging the Order of the Commercial Court on an Application filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed, “It is the fundamental right of every citizen to live in a hygienic and unpolluted environment and the Government is under obligation and constitutional duty to maintain and provide unpolluted environment to the citizens. If the operation and maintenance part of the project does not function properly and is not properly supervised, certainly the result would be prejudicial to the interest of public and would amount to violation of their fundamental rights at large.”
The Bench took cognizance in order to check & ensure that operation and maintenance work of Dravyavati River Project be done continuously, effectively, and properly, so also the object of project, sought to be achieved by the Government, may be fulfilled to its completion in true spirit.
Advocate Anuroop Singhi represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate K.K. Sharma represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The JDA had filed a Writ Petition challenging an Order by the Commercial Court, Jaipur, which stayed an Arbitral Award in favour of the Respondent-Claimant, subject to the JDA depositing 50% of the awarded amount. The dispute in this case arose from the "Dravyavati River Rejuvenation Project," a turnkey project being awarded to Tata Projects Limited (TPL) and Shanghai Urban Construction Group (SUCG) consortium. The project was divided into two parts: Design Build Phase (Part A) and Operation and Maintenance (Part B). The JDA withheld payments for construction work in submergence areas, claiming no work was done.
The Respondent-Claimant disputed this, leading to an Arbitral Award in its favour. The JDA challenged this Award, and the Commercial Court stayed the award subject to the JDA depositing 50% of the awarded amount. The JDA argued that the Arbitral Award is patently illegal and contrary to Indian law. On the other hand, the Respondent-Claimant contended that the contract was a lump sum turnkey project, and the JDA issued a commissioning certificate for completion of project work. The JDA was before the High Court seeks to set aside or modify the condition of pre-depositing 50% of the Arbitral Award, offering instead to furnish a solvent security in the form of a nationalized bank FDR.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “This Court finds that the Commercial Court could not ponder over the provision of Section 36(3) of the A&C Act, 1996, which suggests that the Court shall have due regard to the provisions, for grant of stay against a money decree, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The provision of Order 41 Rule 1(3) CPC provides that in an appeal against the decree for payment of money, the appellant shall either deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit. The provision of Order 41 Rule 5(5) CPC also suggest to make deposition by furnishing security, as specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1.”
The Court said that permitting to release amount in question, is tantamount to unjust enrichment of respondent-claimant, since it would mean payment for that construction work, which indeed admittedly has not been done in reality and hence, the Commercial Court ought to have considered all these factors and more particularly the genesis of passing the award, before putting such a condition of pre-deposit of 50% of the awarded amount by JDA.
“Hence, it is apparent that the Commercial Court put such condition of pre-deposit in a mechanical and routine manner as much as without due application of judicial mind and without judicious exercise of its discretion”, it added.
The Court further observed that the Commercial Court committed jurisdictional error in exercising its discretion arbitrarily, mechanically and injudiciously, while putting the condition of pre-deposit of 50% of awarded amount by the JDA, to stay the execution of arbitral award.
“In the opinion of this Court, the Commercial Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, ought to have permitted the petitioner- JDA to furnish security instead of insisting on deposition of 50% of the awarded amount in cash before the Court. To this extent, the Commercial Court has committed jurisdictional error in exercise of its discretionary powers, that too, condition has been saddled upon the JDA, without application of judicious mind and without assigning proper reasonings, hence the impugned order warrants interference/ modification to this extent only”, it also said.
The Court was of the view that it is a fit case where in order to meet ends of justice and in order to maintain balance & equity between the parties, interference in the impugned Order to the limited extent, is warranted by the Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
“This Court expects from the Commercial Court, that in such type of matters, having element of public interest issues, to exercise its discretionary powers judiciously and with due application of mind and not just in a mechanical and routine manner, that too without assigning reasonings and without appreciating all aspects of the matter”, it added.
Before parting with the case, the Court noted that the issue of cleaning, maintenance and operation of the project, pertaining to rejuvenation of Amaanishaah Naala and converting the same into Dravyavati River, involves public interest as well, apart from being merely a contract between JDA and Claimant.
“Petitioner- JDA & respondent- Company are directed and expected to submit yearly maintenance reports in respect of operation and maintenance work of Dravyavati River Rejuvenation Project, on the record of this Court, by way of possible means i.e. either in hard copy or in digitized form”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition and modified the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Jaipur Development Authority v. TPI-Sucg Consortium (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:51492)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Anuroop Singhi, Devansh Sharma, Palak Saraswat, and Bhavya Kala.
Respondent: Senior Advocate K.K. Sharma, Advocates Shivangshu Naval, and Akansha Naval.