Experts’ view on infra projects final, says high court

: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the experts view with respect to infrastructure projects should not be ordinarily interfered with by the high court while invoking its powers of judicial review.

“..the projects of constructions of highways and widening/ augmentation of the infrastructure in the country is the field of experts. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of development and maintenance of the highways. Once the project study has been completed along with the viability and feasibility of any such demand being catered to and having not been found feasible by the experts, such view of the experts should not be ordinarily interfered with,” the bench of justice Vinod Bhardwaj said.

The bench dismissed a 2016 plea from the residents of Sahnewal Khurd village which is situated on both sides of the National Highway-1 near Ludhiana. They had stated that National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) has undertaken the work of widening and the bridges and flyovers have been constructed. The bridges/flyover constructed, is dividing the village. There is a continuous flow of traffic on the main highway and in the absence of any access to go to the other side, the residents are inclined to crossover the highway, they had submitted demanding access between the two sides of the village. The vehicular underpass has been provided one km away from the village. In nearby villages, access was given but in this case NHAI has ignored it, they had said demanding that NHAI be asked to give access to the villagers.

NHAI, after examining the demand, had submitted that it was not found to be feasible. It is not technically possible to provide a vehicular underpass at such a close proximity only to satisfy the public sentiment, it had submitted.

The court observed that the villagers adjacent to the national highway may only claim a right to access on either side, which such human aspect has already been taken into consideration. “However, such a demand cannot be extended to vest a right in favour of the residents for access from the points of their choice. Such discretion has to be left to the planners,” the bench said adding that the experts have undertaken the entire survey and explored the possibilities of providing access at various points.

It added that any interference at any later stages is likely to have serious implications not only in due execution of the projects but also in escalation of the cost of the project and thus drain of public exchequer. “Convenience cannot be equated as conferring a right. Hence, merely because the petitioners are inconvenienced in travelling to the other side of the national highway, cannot be equated to denying access and form the basis for directing the NHAI to provide an additional underpass at the place as designated by the petitioners,” the bench underlined adding that any such, “undue indulgence” has a cascading effect of similar demand being raised at multiple points and thus may result in defeating the very object of developing the highway projects.

Merely because the petitioners are inconvenienced in travelling to the other side of the national highway, it can’t be equated to denying access and form the basis for directing the NHAI to provide an additional underpass

HC BENCH