Kerala High Court Directs State to Consider Dr. E. Sreedharan 's Technical Suggestions on Bridge Alignment

Kochi: In a significant ruling concerning public infrastructure projects, the Kerala High Court, on October 3, 2024, declined to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the State to alter the alignment of the ongoing Thirunavaya – Thavanur Bridge construction. However, acknowledging the extraordinary expertise of the petitioner, Dr. E. Sreedharan , the court directed the state authorities to consider his suggestions as valuable input and grant him an opportunity to explain his proposal.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by the renowned engineer and architect of the Konkan Railway and Delhi Metro Rail projects, Dr. E. Sreedharan (aged 92), sought a direction to the respondents, including the State of Kerala and the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation Ltd., to consider an alternative alignment proposed by him for the bridge connecting Thirunavaya and Thavanur. The petition also sought to restrain the authorities from proceeding with the currently approved alignment.

Appearing for the petitioner, Adv. Sajith Kumar V. highlighted Dr. Sreedharan 's extensive experience and technical knowledge, arguing that his suggested alignment was based on sound engineering principles aimed at improving the project.

The court, comprising Chief Justice Mr. Nitin Jamdar and Mr. Justice S. Manu, heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel and the government pleaders representing the respondents. The learned Senior Government Pleader informed the court that the work on the bridge had already commenced based on the approved alignment.

In its judgment, the bench emphasized the technical nature of deciding the alignment for a bridge. The court stated:

> "Alignment of bridge involves technical expertise. It is not possible for us to assume the expertise in the subject and issue a writ of mandamus to change the alignment of the bridge."

While refraining from issuing a direct order to change the alignment, the court recognized the unique position of the petitioner. Given Dr. Sreedharan 's long-standing expertise and experience in the field of infrastructure, the court opined that his petition should be treated by the authorities as a suggestion or input to be implemented if feasible .

The court directed the learned Government Pleader to place a copy of the writ petition before the 1st Respondent, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department. The Principal Secretary was instructed to examine the suggestions provided by the petitioner and thereafter take an appropriate decision.

Furthermore, acknowledging the petitioner's willingness to personally explain his proposal, the bench directed the 1st Respondent to grant an audience to Dr. Sreedharan , either personally or through video conferencing, to facilitate a better understanding of his suggestions and input.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The judgment underscores the judiciary's stance of not interfering directly in technical matters requiring specialized knowledge but highlights the importance it places on authorities considering expert opinions, especially from highly qualified individuals, in the public interest. This decision ensures that while the court respects the executive's domain in technical execution, it facilitates the incorporation of potentially valuable expert advice into public projects.