 seeking direction commanding the respondents to modify the existing route alignment of National Highway no.351 between Bagasara and Jetpur stretch from Bagasara-Tori-Vadiya-Thanagalol-Jetpur to Bagasara-Manekvada-Devkigalol-Jetpur){kind=link}
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction commanding the respondents to modify the existing route alignment of National Highway no.351 between Bagasara and Jetpur stretch from Bagasara-Tori-Vadiya-Thanagalol-Jetpur to Bagasara-Manekvada-Devkigalol-Jetpur.
The petitioners (two in number) claimed to be a farmer and a lawyer residing in a village known as Bhesan, Taluka Bhesan, District Junagadh. They are aggrieved by alignment of a road with the National Highway No.351, the route known as Bagasara-ToriVadiya-Thanagalol-Jetpur, on the ground that the right of the public to access the road has been hampered as now they have to cover a long stretch to reach their destination.
It is further submitted that the notification dated 13.06.2014 has been issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways for construction of National Highway No.351, by making some changes in the existing National Highway No.351 and National Highway No.27. The assertion is that the proposal for alignment of the stretch/route as aforesaid in National Highway No.351 is arbitrary, discriminatory and influence on the recommendation of the then members of the Legislative Assembly.
The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Road and Building Department, Government of Gujarat, had issued no objection to the proposal to include the said road in National Highway No.351 without adopting due process of law.
The contention is that the route alignment is 56.40 Km of length with more curvatures, whereas the other alignment suggested by the petitioners is of lesser length with less curvatures. Further contention is that the route in question would require more private land in comparison to the route suggested by the petitioners. The submissions, thus, are with regard to the feasibility of the route which is finalized by the competent authority having expertise in the matter, rather than the route suggested by the petitioners.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that the decision for alignment of a particular route with the National Highway No.351 would require consideration of various factors falling within the arena of experts.
“This Court is not equipped either with expertise for technical evaluation nor can assess other attending circumstances requiring consideration for the policy decision. The scope of interference in Article 226 is limited to the aspects of the decision making process, which is sought to be assailed by the writ petitioners on the premise that the interest of the public at large would suffer on account of wrong alignment of the road.”
The Court noted that none of the petitioners are affected by the decision of the competent authority, as admittedly, they are the residents of different villages. The persons who could be aggrieved by acquisition or utilization of their land with the disputed alignment, have not come forward.
“This seems to be publicity litigation than a public interest litigation. We accordingly, dismiss the petition being misconceived”, the Bench ordered.