Chh’garh HC Drops Suit Challenging Raipur, Bilaspur Smart City Projects

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a petition that challenged the Smart City projects in Bilaspur and Raipur.

The petitioner alleged that the special purpose vehicles (SPVs) responsible for implementing the projects had encroached upon the powers of the municipal corporations in both cities. However, after examining the Smart City Mission Statement and Guidelines, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari concluded that the powers and authorities of the municipal corporations had not been taken over by the SPVs. The court emphasised that the routine municipal functions were still being carried out by the municipal authorities under the command and control of elected representatives. Sumesh Bajaj, the counsel for Raipur Smart City (RSC) and Bilaspur Smart City (BSC), stated, “With the dismissal of the petition, the Smart City projects in Bilaspur and Raipur will continue without interruption, focusing on various developmental activities aimed at improving the quality of life for residents and strengthening the cities’ infrastructure.”
The controversy surrounding the petition centred on the alleged usurpation of powers by BSC and RSC. The petitioner argued that the elected members of the municipal corporations were not represented on the Board of Directors of the SPVs, raising concerns about the democratic functioning of the projects.

The petitioner’s counsel, Sudeep Shrivastava, contended that between 2016 and 2020, the BSC and RSC undertook various development works without any oversight from the elected bodies of the municipal corporations. These works included street lighting installations, road construction, school upgrades, water supply systems, and more.
The court observed that the primary beneficiaries of the developmental activities carried out by the SPVs were the general public of Bilaspur and Raipur. It also highlighted that no elected member of the municipal corporations had challenged the scheme or the composition of the SPVs’ Board of Directors. The court questioned the timing of the petitioner’s objection, which arose when the smart city projects were nearing completion.