Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking a Light Vehicle Underpass on a national highway in Ranipet District, Tamil Nadu. The appellant, A.R. Parvathy Rajmani, the Rural Village President of Avalur Panchayat, had made a representation on 19.08.2024 to the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, requesting a Light Vehicle Underpass near the village, citing the long distances villagers had to travel to cross the road. When the representation was not acted upon, the appellant filed W.P. No. 31841 of 2024 seeking a mandamus. The National Highways Authority filed a counter affidavit disclosing that two Light Vehicle Underpasses were already provided at Km 87+544 and Km 90+082, located 1.581 km and 0.95 km from the requested location. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 20.11.2024, accepting the existence of adequate alternatives. On appeal, the Division Bench emphasised that the formulation of National Highway projects involves expert research and technical deliberation. The High Court, not being an expert body, must not ordinarily interfere with such schemes in exercise of its judicial review power, as interference could prejudice the project. The Court found that the Single Judge had rightly relied on the counter affidavit and that any residual grievances should be addressed to the competent authorities of the National Highways Authority. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The decision reinforces the principle that courts should defer to expert agencies in infrastructure planning and limit the scope of mandamus in such technical matters.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference in Infrastructure Decisions - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The appellant, a village president, sought a mandamus for a Light Vehicle Underpass; the Court held that the High Court, not being an expert body, cannot interfere with research-oriented schemes of the National Highways Authority; the Authority had already provided two alternative underpasses within 1.581 km and 0.95 km; therefore, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. (Paras 3, 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in exercise of judicial review can interfere with the scheme of National Highway Authority for provision of Light Vehicle Underpass? Whether the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge, based on the existence of alternative underpasses, is sustainable?
Final Decision
Writ Appeal dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Judicial review is limited in expert-driven infrastructure projects
- High Court should not interfere with schemes formulated by expert bodies like National Highway Authority
- Mandamus not to be issued to direct provision of Light Vehicle Underpass when suitable alternatives exist
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 126
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
Pari Gopal (Appellant), A. Selvendran (Special Government Pleader for R1, R3, R6 & R7)
The District Collector, Ranipet, The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, The Regional Officer, National Highway Authority of India, Chennai, The Team Leader, SA Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram, The Tahsildhar, Ranipet, The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, Vellore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking mandamus for provision of Light Vehicle Underpass on a national highway.
Remedy Sought
Direction to the second respondent (Project Director, National Highways Authority of India) to consider the representation dated 19.08.2024 and implement the scheme for laying Light Vehicle Underpass at Aavalur Village Panchayat.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed villagers have to travel long distances to cross the national highway and therefore required a Light Vehicle Underpass near their village.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge dismissed W.P. No. 31841 of 2024 on 20.11.2024, relying on the counter affidavit of the National Highways Authority that two alternative Light Vehicle Underpasses were already available at distances of 1.581 km and 0.95 km.
Issues
Whether the High Court in exercise of judicial review can interfere with the scheme of the National Highway Authority for provision of Light Vehicle Underpass?
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge, based on existence of alternative underpasses, is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that a Light Vehicle Underpass should be provided near their village because residents have to travel long distances to cross the road.
Respondents contended that two Light Vehicle Underpasses are already available at distances of 1.581 km and 0.95 km from the requested location, rendering the request unnecessary.
Ratio Decidendi
High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot interfere with research-oriented schemes implemented by expert bodies such as National Highways Authority. Formation of National Highways road is done by experts after thorough research, and court interference would cause prejudice to the scheme. Where alternative provisions exist as per the authority's counter, mandamus cannot be issued.
Judgment Excerpts
Formation of National Highways road has been implemented by conducting thorough research by the experts. High Court not being an expert body need not necessarily interfere with the scheme or project proposed to be implemented.
Such grievances if any, to be redressed only by the competent Authorities of the National Highways. High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot interfere with such research oriented schemes.
Procedural History
Appellant filed W.P. No. 31841 of 2024 seeking mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider representation dated 19.08.2024 for Light Vehicle Underpass. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20.11.2024 based on counter affidavit of National Highways Authority indicating alternative underpasses exist. Appellant then filed the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
- Letters Patent Act, 1865: Clause 15
