.){kind=link}
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed in the matter of the construction of roads, dimensions for constructing the road as well as for the construction of divider are in pursuance to the specifications being made by the experts in the field.
The drawing and design once finalized by the expert cannot be interfered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents authorities to construct a road divider in the middle of the road – old National Highway No.7 from Majhauli Bypass to Bus Stand Sihora (M.P.).
It is alleged that the divider which has been constructed by the respondents is not from the center point of the road and will cause inconvenience to the moving traffic.
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Kushala Shetty (2011) 12 SCC 69 wherein it is held :
- Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of national highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of national highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. ..”
On a question being put to the counsel for the petitioner as to what prejudice is being caused to him on the divider being constructed on the road by the respondents which is in pursuance to the drawing and design which has been finalized by the body of experts, nothing could be pointed out by him. Hence, in absence of any legal grievance which could be raised by the petitioner, no relief can be extended to him , the Court held.