High court concerned as Deekshabhoomiredevelopment project finds no bidders

Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Wednesday raised serious concerns over the viability of the proposed redevelopment of Deekshabhoomi after repeated tenders failed to attract any bidders for appointing a project management consultant (PMC), prompting the court to question both planning and execution of the project.Hearing PIL filed by lawyer Shailesh Narnaware, division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode sought detailed responses from Nagpur Metropolitan Region Development Authority (NMRDA) and the state govt on the absence of bidders despite multiple attempts.Appearing for NMRDA, advocate Girish Kunte informed court that the first tender for appointing a PMC was floated on Feb 9 but received no response. Fresh advertisements were subsequently issued on April 1 and April 9, yet no firm submitted bids. Deadline has now been extended till April 20, to elicit participation.The issue gained prominence after the state govt earlier informed the court that the redevelopment would be carried out on the lines of global urban models such as Singapore and Dubai. The bench, however, expressed reservations over such claims and sought clarity on their practical application. "What kind of development is being proposed on the lines of Singapore and Dubai?" the court asked orally, underscoring the need for specificity in planning.The petition highlights delays and disputes surrounding Deekshabhoomi redevelopment, a site of national and international importance that attracts thousands of visitors annually. The court was told that a meeting held on Jan 16 involving district authorities, NMRDA, Nagpur Improvement Trust and members of memorial committee had shortlisted one of four development options.State placed on record a communication referring to a meeting chaired by social justice minister on Dec 11, 2025, stating proposals would be invited to ensure "international-standard" development. NMRDA submitted the tendering process was initiated accordingly. Despite these steps, absence of bidders has drawn court's attention. Expressing dissatisfaction, bench directed NMRDA to outline alternative measures. "If no contractor is coming forward, what is alternative?" court asked, emphasising need to identify underlying issues.Court observed merely issuing tenders without ensuring feasibility would not suffice for a project of such significance. The bench directed NMRDA to file a reply addressing future course of action. The matter is scheduled for hearing on April 18.