IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that existing infrastructure suffices for public needs, and expert body decisions in technical matters should not be interfered with by courts.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners state that they are permanent residents of Marakkara and Kalpakancherry Panchayats in Randathani in Malappuram District. They have approached this Court complaining about the inconveniences which are caused by the work of the National Highway 66. The prayer in W.P.(C)No.31606 of 2023 is for a direction to the respondents to provide an underpass at Chainage 291.475 or at 291.700 or at 291.309 in NH 66 at Randathani in Malappuram District for convenient crossing of the petitioners and vehicular movements. The prayer in W.P. (C) No.31850 of 2023 is for a direction to the respondents to provide 3/4 metres pedestrian pathway under the National Highway at Randathani (Chainage between 291/200 to 291/350) in Malappuram District, which was in existence, as per Ext.P1 asset register of Marakkara Panchayat.

2. At the time of admission, this Court had directed the National Highway Authority not to shut down the pathway in question. Thereafter, after detailed consideration, this Court had modified the interim orders by orders dated 31.10.2023 and 3.1.2024. On 19.1.2024, this Court vacated the interim order on the reason that there is an underpass provided at 290.940.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

4. It is clear from the contentions raised by either side that there is a vehicular underpass at Chainage 290.940 and at 292.660. The contention of the respondents is that since there is already an underpass at Chainage 290.940, the request for an underpass at Chainage 291.475 or 291.309 or 291.700 cannot be considered. I find that as between Chainage 291.309 where the Ayoobkhan Road meets the service road and the vehicular underpass at 290.940, the distance is only 369 metres. The contention of the respondents that since there is already a service road provided, it is not feasible to have an additional underpass at such short distance, is fully justified. This Court does not have the expertise in such matters and it will not be proper to interfere with the decisions taken by the Expert Body in this regard. Moreover, after the interim order was vacated, the work has also progressed considerably. It is settled law that the findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters are not ordinarily interfered with by Courts. (See Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthi & Ors. (2021) 3 SCC 572).

No interference is called for in these writ petitions and the writ petitions are dismissed.