“The High Court of Karnataka rejected the writ petition, upholding the Executive’s jurisdiction over road construction decisions and stressing the boundaries of judicial interference in such issues.”

Case Title – Sri Iranna Vs. The Union of India

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 5201 of 2024

Dated on – 15^th April,2024

Quorum – Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Sri Iranna Vs. The Union of India, the Appellants are Sri Iranna and Sri Siddaramesh whereas the Respondents are The Union of India, State of Karnataka, C, Chief Engineer of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Commissioner Koppal District, Koppal Development Authority, Assistant Executive Engineer NHAI and the Additional Director General Nodal Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The Appellants in the present case are both engaged in agriculture and are the residents of Yelburga, Koppal District, Karnataka. In the present case, the Appellants have challenged the construction of a bypass road by the National Highway Authority, stating that it passes through their agricultural lands and tube wells, impacting their as well as the rights of the pedestrians and the users of the road. The Appellants had priorly instituted a similar Writ Petition No. 17969 of 2023, which was withdrawn with liberty to file again.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTSS

1. The Appellants, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the selection of the bypass No.4 for the construction of the road is inappropriate and contrasts the guidelines.
2. The Appellants, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the alignment of the bypass would scramble the agricultural activities and the access to the tubewells.
3. The Appellants, through their counsel, in the present case sought for a direction of the court to discontinue the construction and embrace the option No.4 for the bypass road to safeguard the rights of the pedestrians as well as the users of the road.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. The Respondents, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the construction of the road falls within the ambit of the Executive and the Court should abstain itself from interfering unless there are strong contentions to do so.
2. The Respondents, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the request of the Appellants to dictate the layout of the road is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
3. The Respondents, through their counsel, in the present case accentuated the significance of the interest of public in infrastructure projects and reiterated that the petition lacks merit.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Jurisdiction of the Court.
2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty of a person.
3. Doctrine of Separation of Power prescribes that the courts should show deference to decisions of the Executive unless there is a breach of binding rules.
4. Principle of Self-Restraint prescribes that the courts should not readily interfere in the functions of the Executive unless there are strong reasons to do so.

ISSUES

1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether there should be an intervention of the court in the decision of the Executive for the construction of the road?
2. Whether the request of the Appellants for a specific layout of the road is justified?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Sri Iranna Vs. The Union of India, the court appreciated the appeal of the Appellants for the public interest jurisdiction but asserted that it should be used only in cases concerning the welfare of the marginalised or weaker sections of the society or in cases concerning the violation of the fundamental rights of the people of the country. The court cited the previous cases where the court has declined to interfere in matters relating to the infrastructure projects, averring that such matters should be best left to the decisions of the Executive. The court, in the present case, held that planning the layout as well as executing the road projects are the functions of the executive and does not come within the ambit of the court, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or violative of the fundamental rights of the people of the country. The court in this case, dismissed the petition of the Appellants, enunciating that the request of the Appellants for the specific layout of the road being constructed cannot be entertained since it lies under the realm of the Executive.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment