Public Infrastructure Cannot Be Altered for Private Convenience Without Compelling Reasons: Punjab and Haryana High Court Refused To Relocation of Foot Over Bridge

Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant ruling against the Union of India and others. The court, presided by Hon'ble Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, dismissed the petition seeking the relocation of a Foot Over Bridge (FOB) proposed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in front of the petitioner's automobile showroom. The petition was rejected on the grounds that judicial review is limited in matters involving infrastructure projects carried out by expert bodies unless there is procedural impropriety, illegality, or mala fides.
Prime Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., an authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra, operates a large showroom situated near YMCA Chowk, Faridabad. The petitioner raised concerns over the proposed construction of an FOB directly in front of its premises, arguing that the placement would disrupt business operations, hinder access, and create safety risks due to overlapping pedestrian and vehicle pathways.
The NHAI proposed the FOB as part of a broader project to construct multiple footbridges on National Highway No. 2 to improve pedestrian safety. The petitioner had approached the NHAI, requesting the relocation of the FOB approximately 200 meters in either direction, but the request was denied. Following this, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Justice Bhardwaj emphasized that the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review administrative decisions is limited. The judgment stated, "The High Court does not function as an appellate body in matters requiring technical expertise. It may only interfere if there is procedural impropriety, arbitrariness, or malice in law" [Para 6.3].
The court cited Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, 2011 AIR (SCW) 4460 and N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 336, which underscore that infrastructure projects involve expert assessments and must not be subject to interference without compelling reasons.
The bench highlighted the necessity of prioritizing public interest over private business inconveniences. "Shifting such infrastructure based solely on private interests could set a harmful precedent, compromising future public infrastructure projects," the court remarked [Paras 6.5-6.11].
The court noted that the placement of the FOB had been determined based on consultations involving the Independent Engineer, road safety experts, the district administration, and traffic police authorities. The court observed, "The site was chosen to maximize public safety, minimizing pedestrian accidents by situating the FOB at a crossing point with high pedestrian traffic" [Para 6.2]. The feasibility of shifting the FOB was evaluated and found to be detrimental to its intended purpose.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the FOB would disrupt logistics operations and pose safety risks. They also cited a nearby instance where an FOB location had been altered following objections. However, the court found no evidence supporting this claim and stated that relocation based on convenience without proven necessity is unwarranted [Paras 3.1-3.5].
The court referred to judgments, including Panchshilla Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2015 (222) DLT 10, which emphasized that infrastructure planning by expert bodies should not be overridden unless procedural flaws or legal violations are evident. The decision also cited Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133, where the Supreme Court cautioned against unnecessary judicial interference in technical matters involving public projects [Para 4.12].
The court concluded that no legal, procedural, or constitutional rights of the petitioner had been violated. "The petitioner's claim of potential business disruption does not provide sufficient grounds for shifting the FOB, as public safety and the technical rationale behind infrastructure projects must prevail," Justice Bhardwaj ruled [Paras 6.6-6.11].
The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications related to the case were also disposed of. The NHAI's decision to maintain the original location for the FOB was upheld, reaffirming the principle that public infrastructure decisions are best left to expert bodies unless there is clear evidence of procedural impropriety or abuse of power.

Date of Decision: October 22, 2024