Judiciary should respect executive decisions in public projects unless there is a clear breach of law or constitutional principle.

ORDER :

Prasanna B. Varale, CJ.

Petitioners claiming to be the public spirited citizens are invoking the PIL jurisdiction of this court with the following prayer:

"a) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the implementation of project viz., "Construction of Elevated Corridor from Km 135.650 to 136.450 on N H 63, from Km 249.00 to 250.050 on N H 4 and from Km 193.800 to 193.350 on N H 218 for Decongestion to traffic at Rani Chennamma Circle in Hubli City/Taluka in the State of Karnataka on EPC mode as per Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity"

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that the project in question if accomplished as designed would be "highly inconvenient" to the public since it would increase the traffic congestion; the whole project militates against the provisions of Indian Road Congress; the minimum required standards such as 30 metres Turning Radius, 25 metres Safe Stopping Site Distance, 2 metres Cycle Tracks, minimum width Foot Paths of 1.8 metres, minimum 7 metres breadth of Service Road, etc., would remain non-compliant. He draws our attention to the elaborate pleadings taken up in this regard. So arguing he seeks for the voiding of the Project in question.

3. Learned DSG appearing for the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2, learned Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 & 4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 oppose the writ petition making submission in support of the Project in question. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by one Mr. Narendra Sharma, Regional Officer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India refuting the petition averments. Learned DSG has also filed this day a memo along with upto date progress report of the project in question and contends that when the accomplishment of the project is half way through, this court may not entertain the petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the construction project in question essentially relates to the domain of Executive which will have the advantage of technology, feasibility and finance; courts by their very nature are ill-suited in deciding those factors, if called upon. The Apex Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Rajnarain , (1975) 2 SCC 159 has identified the doctrine of separation of powers being an essential feature of our Constitution and therefore each of the State Organs has to show deference to the decisions of the other, unless breach of binding Rule of Conduct is demonstrated. Learned DSG is right in contending that the Judiciary cannot substitute its decisions for those of the Executive in matters like this, by their very nature.

5. It hardly needs to be stated that the population is growing exponentially and that growth has been posing several challenges to the Administration, one of them being in the realm of Traffic, Transport & Commutation. What construction project, where should be undertaken and what all factors the execution of such projects should involve, are all matters in respect of which courts cannot undertake a deeper examination of the details. As already observed, they are ordinarily beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the petitioners does not fit into. Added to this, the accomplishment of the project in question is already half way through as is reflected from the Executive Engineer's Report titled as "Updated physical and financial progress of Hubli elevated corridor as on 20th September, 2023.