Courts should respect expert opinions in infrastructure matters, focusing on the decision-making process rather than merits, ensuring public interest is upheld.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge’s Court in WP(C)No.5762 of 2024 because, it has repelled their contention against the proposed alignment of the Kothad-Chennur Bridge, repelling their objections.

2. Sri. Mohan Kumar – appearing for the appellants, argued that the present proposed alignment is an action in malafides since, the earlier one, settled more than two decades ago, had been finalised and confirmed by the competent Authorities. He contended that the present alignment has been proposed in substitution of the the earlier one, solely to save a certain group from acquisition and to prejudice his client, manifest from the fact that his property had been earlier spared of such. He further submitted that, as per the present alignment, there would be an “acute bend” at a particular point in the “Chennur reach”; and that this would also be contrary to public interest.

3. Even when we record the submissions of Sri.

Mohan Kumar, it cannot be lost sight of that, in matters relating to infrastructure development and augmentation of facilities, it is the opinion of the experts, who have the necessary competence, which is vital. Courts are bereft of such competence; and we can only verify whether the procedure, as established by law, has been followed. It is well settled that, in administrative law, courts do not, normally, enter into evaluation of the merits of the decision, but only of the decision-making process.

4. As far as this case is concerned, the contention of the appellant is that the first alignment ought to have been followed and that the proposed alignment is to avoid acquisition of properties of certain persons.

5. However, going by the judgment impugned, the learned Single Judge has specifically enumerated the reasons, desierable from the records, that guided the competent Authorities to consider and finalise the alternative alignment; and such are available in paragraph numbers 9 and 10 thereof, which are extracted below:-

9. The petitioners state that the revised alignment of Kothad - Chennur bridge will be resulting in large scale acquisition of land. If the first alignment is followed, land need to be acquired from only one person. The GIDA held a meeting with Kochi Metro Rail Limited concerning the utilisation of Water Metro acquired land for the construction of the Kothad-Chennur bridge. The Kochi Metro Rail Limited suggested that the access road at Chennur and Kothad terminals should have a minimum width of 6 meters extending the approach span width to accommodate the approach of the Water Metro Boats, which is essential.

10. In view of the above, it became necessary to revise the bridge design. It was in these circumstances that a revised alignment plan was drawn. Even as per the revised alignment plan, only about 20 Ares of land need to be acquired. No residential houses will be affected. The current alignment was determined after conducting a comprehensive feasibility study. Mass petitions submitted by the local residents were considered. Changing the alignment is therefore uncalled for. It would delay the project also.

6. As said above, we are not experts, nor can we sit in judgment over the wisdom of those who are vested with the capacity and competence. Apart from a vague assertion that there is an “acute bend” at one of the reaches, the appellants have not been able to show, much less establish, any public interest that has been breached by the authorities while setting the 2^nd alignment.

7. The primary focus of the appellant is that his property is likely to be acquired on account of the present alignment; while, there would have been no such, if the first had been followed.

8. Sri. Varghese K. Paul – learned Standing Counsel for Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) – which is the ex