PIL seeking mandamus for highway construction completion is infructuous once tender is awarded and work commences.

The petitioner, a social worker and regular commuter, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the prolonged delay in the construction of National Highway 30 (N.H. 30) from the Kanker to Bedma section

The petitioner alleged that the construction had remained incomplete for ten years, causing significant hardship to local residents and daily commuters

Despite submitting representations and filing RTI applications, no effective action was taken by the authorities

During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents initiated the tender process for the completion of the roadwork

1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to complete the construction of the N.H. 30 stretch from Kanker to Bedma within a fixed timeframe

2. Whether the cause of action survives in light of the respondents' subsequent actions in allotting the tender for the work

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning Public Interest Litigation

It applied the principle of "infructuous litigation," wherein a prayer for a Writ of Mandamus becomes redundant once the grievance of the petitioner is voluntarily redressed by the State authorities during the pendency of the case, leaving no surviving "cause of action" for adjudication

The Court examined the submissions from both parties to determine if a live controversy remained.

The petitioner’s counsel conceded that the grievance had been "duly redressed" and that the cause of action no longer survived

This was corroborated by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who informed the Court that the tender for the concerned stretch of the highway had already been successfully allotted and the execution process had officially commenced

The Court reasoned that since the primary relief sought—the initiation and completion of the roadwork—was being addressed through the administrative process of tender allotment and execution, there was no further need for judicial intervention or a specific time-bound direction at this stage

The Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, noting the observation that the grievances raised regarding the N.H. 30 construction had been addressed by the respondents

No order as to costs was passed