Compliance with technical standards does not constitute willful disobedience of court orders, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in matters of public infrastructure.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

Petitioners 1 and 3 along with another have approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.31851 of 2022, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent, namely, the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Kannur to install traffic signals and lights on the National Highway- 66 at Nainmarmoola Junction for the smooth flow of vehicles through that junction. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider and pass orders on their representation dated 03.09.2022 (Ext.P2)

forthwith.

2. W.P.(C)No.31851 of 2022 was disposed of by Annexure

2 judgment dated 10.10.2022, whereby, the respondent was directed to consider and pass orders on the said representation dated 03.09.2022, if it was pending on the file, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. In the said judgment it was made clear that, if a personal hearing is required, it is left to the discretion of the respondent.

3. Now, the petitioners are before this Court in this Contempt case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India , alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure 2 judgment, by the respondent Project Director, who has issued Annexure A3 communication dated 23.11.2022 on the request made by the petitioners in their representation dated 03.09.2022. The stand taken in Annexure 3 has been reiterated in Annexure 5 communication dated 07.01.2023 issued by the respondent, in reply to Annexure 4 representation dated

19.12.2022 made by the 1st petitioner.

4. Annexure 3 communication dated 23.11.2022 of the respondent reads thus;

“It is intimated that, during construction of the project, the Traffic Diversion Plan and traffic signage arrangements shall be made by the concessionaire as per IRC:SP:55-2014 Traffic Management in Work Zones.

After construction of the project, the traffic signage and Road appurtenances as per IRC:67-2012 (Code and Practice for Road Signs) shall be installed by the concessionaire after getting the approval of Safety Consultant, NHAI and Road Safety Expert of Independent Engineer.”

5. Annexure 5 communication dated 07.01.2023 of the respondent reads thus;

“Regarding your request for the installation traffic signal, we have already informed the status after technical scrutiny vide our letter No.11115/NHAI/PIU-Kannur/2022/1091 dated

23.11.2022.

However, with reference to your remaining points, an underpass of 7mx3m is considered at KM53+440, Naimarmoola in change of scope which is under process and hope the same will suffice the requirements.”

6. Heard Sri. Mohamed Ravuf K.K., the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mathews K. Philip, the learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority of India.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the direction contained in Annexure 2 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.31851 of 2022 while issuing Annexure 3 communication dated 23.11.2022 and Annexure 5 communication dated 07.01.2023.

8. As noted in paragraph 3 of Annexure 2 judgment, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners confined the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.31851 of 2022 to the extent of considering Ext.P2 representation dated 03.09.2022 by the respondent Project Director, National Highway Authority of India. Therefore, by Annexure 2 judgment, this Court directed the respondent to consider and pass orders on the said representation, if it was pending on the file, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.

9. In Union of India v. Kushala Shetty [(2011) 12 SCC 69] the Apex Court analysed the provisions under Sections 3A to 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 and opined that the National Highway Authority of India is a p