Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 981
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Madurai Farooq Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary To Government & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11195 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31444 of 2025)
Decided On : 21-08-2026
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr./Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. S. Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Ritika Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Harmeet Rupesh, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bundela/, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.
The Supreme Court held that courts may take on record assurances from authorities and direct time-bound completion of public infrastructure projects without continuous monitoring, while acknowledging the importance of bona fide public interest litigation.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 - Land acquisition for public works - Public Interest Litigation - Scope of writ court - Directions for time-bound completion of infrastructure project - The court emphasized that a vigilant and bona fide citizen can, through sustained engagement with authorities and constitutional courts, draw attention to issues affecting the community at large, and such constructive civic participation deserves acknowledgment. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a resident of a town in Tamil Nadu, had been pursuing for several years the replacement of a level crossing with a grade-separated crossing. The project underwent multiple changes in design - from a Road Over Bridge (ROB) to a Road Under Bridge (RUB) and finally to a Limited Use Subway (LUS). The State Government issued successive government orders approving these changes. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions to expedite construction, but the High Court disposed of the petition without granting a specific timeline. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the project had progressed materially towards execution with land acquisition proceedings underway, tender processes initiated, and authorities giving specific assurances regarding completion timelines. The court took on record the statements and assurances, expecting the authorities to proceed with due expedition and coordination. The court declined to keep the appeal pending for continuous monitoring but directed the authorities to complete their respective portions within specified periods and file compliance affidavits within eight months.
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in disposing of the writ petition without directing a time-bound completion of the LUS project.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts may take on record assurances given by public authorities and issue directions for time-bound execution without resorting to continuous monitoring. The appeal is disposed of with specific directions to ensure completion of the project. Bona fide public interest litigation seeking community benefits is to be appreciated. Result : Appeal disposed of with directions to the State authorities to complete land acquisition and all approvals expeditiously, to the railway authority to finalise the tender and complete its work within six months of award, and for both to file compliance affidavits within eight months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of project evolution and litigation history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court assesses current status and assurances from authorities. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. recognition of genuine public interest litigation efforts. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. disposal with directions based on assurances and expedited compliance. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present civil appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 21364 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”), whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition preferred by the appellant, who was the petitioner before the High Court, seeking, inter alia, directions to the respondents to expedite the construction of a Limited Use Subway in lieu of Level Crossing No. 81 at Vaniyambadi and to complete the same within a stipulated time frame.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows.
3.1. The appellant is a resident of Vaniyambadi in Tirupattur District, Tamil Nadu. Level Crossing No. 81 is situated at Vaniyambadi between the Vaniyambadi and Kethandapatti Railway Stations. The railway line divides the eastern and western parts of Vaniyambadi Town and the level crossing is used by a substantial number of residents and commuters for movement between the two sides of the town.
4. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O. (Ms.) No. 272 dated 13.11.2007, granted administrative sanction for construction of a Road Over Bridge (hereinafter referred to as “ROB”) in lieu of Level Crossing No. 81 at an estimated cost of Rs. 13 crores on a cost-sharing basis with the Southern Railway. During the subsequent examination of the project, it was found that construction of the proposed ROB would require acquisition of a substantial extent of land in a heavily built-up area and would entail considerably higher costs. An alternative proposal for construction of a Road Under Bridge (hereinafter referred to as “RUB”) was, accordingly, considered.
4.1. In the meantime, the appellant had approached the High Court in W.P. No. 26319 of 2018 seeking commencement of the construction work or reopening of Level Crossing No. 81 for public use. During the pendency of those proceedings, the level crossing, which had earlier been closed, was reopened for public use. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 18.07.2023.
4.2. The proposal for construction of the RUB was thereafter pursued by the State Government and the Southern Railway. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O. (Ms.) No. 158 dated 16.12.2019, approved the change in nomenclature of the project from an ROB to an RUB. Subsequently, by G.O. (2D) No. 3 dated 22.01.2021, proceedings were undertaken for acquisition of the land required for construction of the RUB under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Highways Act”).
4.3. The land acquisition proceedings for the RUB continued thereafter. The proceedings included enquiry under the relevant provisions of the Highways Act and a meeting of the District Private Negotiation Committee with the affected landowners. The State Government also accorded revised administrative sanction towards the cost of land acquisition.
4.4. Subsequently, upon further examination of the project and a joint inspection conducted by the officials of the State Highways Department and the Southern Railway, the proposal was modified once again and a Limited Use Subway (hereinafter referred to as “LUS”) was considered in place of the RUB. The revised Land Plan Schedule for the LUS contemplated acquisition of a reduced area of approximately 5009 square metres. The alignment of the LUS was approved and the proposal for change in nomenclature from the RUB to the LUS was submitted to the State Government.
4.5. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O. (Ms.) No. 84 dated 15.05.2025, approved the change in nomenclature of the project from
