The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has emphasized that courts are not the appropriate forums to assess the technical feasibility or broader public interest of infrastructural projects. In a recent judgment, the court declined to interfere in a challenge concerning the change in scope of work for a flyover project on the Jammu-Akhnoor Road, highlighting that such issues are best left to experts.
The petition was filed by members of an association representing commercial property owners of the Palm Island Mall, situated on Canal Road, Jammu. The petitioners opposed modifications in the flyover’s design, arguing that it would block access to the Mall, increase traffic congestion, and compromise commuter safety.
Read also: Participation in NI Act Case Doesn’t Mean Acceptance of Jurisdiction: J&K High Court Clarifies
"Whether the merger scheme proposed by the official respondents would be technically feasible or whether it would serve the larger public interest are matters beyond the scope of judicial review," the Court observed, making it clear that such evaluations are for technical experts, not the judiciary.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Dhar concluded that neither the Court nor the petitioners are equipped to assess the viability or feasibility of complex infrastructure works. The Court reiterated that it is not an appellate authority to sit in judgment over expert opinions concerning design, safety, cost, and other technical components of public projects.
According to the petitioners, the Palm Island Mall was constructed with all necessary approvals, including a sanctioned building plan ensuring a 40-feet wide access road as per the Master Plans of 2021 and 2032. They contended that any reduction in this width violates planning norms and adversely affects their commercial interests.
The matter arose when the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) began widening the Akhnoor Road. The petitioners alleged that during this process, unauthorized design alterations were introduced. Specifically, they claimed that the flyover’s landing point was moved from 1.350 km to 1.000 km, reducing the road width in front of the Mall to just 14 feet and causing the construction of a “blind wall.”
Read also: Accused Can’t Be Detained Just Because He Got Bail: J&K High Court’s Strong Stand
"The Court cannot direct the official respondents to abandon their proposal and adhere to the original merger plan, especially when the change is still under consideration and supported by sound reasons," the bench stated.
The petitioners also argued that once the Detailed Project Report (DPR) was approved, the highway authority was not empowered to unilaterally alter the project’s scope. The High Court rejected this contention, clarifying that the contract terms explicitly empower the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to require the contractor to modify the works as needed. In such cases, contractors must submit a response within 15 days of receiving a change of scope notice.
The Court acknowledged that the official respondents had communicated to the petitioners that there would be no reduction in the width of the Mall’s entry and exit points and assured unhindered access.
"Mere inconvenience to petitioners or their customers cannot form the basis for rejecting the government’s revised plan, especially when public interest and timely project completion are at stake," the Court remarked.
Furthermore, the Court took note of the official explanation provided for abandoning the original merger plan and adopting a new design, which remains under review. The reasons were found to be cogent and convincing.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, who are members of an association of commercial property owners in Palm Island Mall, had approached the High Court to challenge the proposed changes in the construction of a four-lane flyover on NH-144A, from Canal Head to Ganesh Vihar, Muthi. They sought a court order to enforce the original plan as outlined in the approved DPR and prevent any reduction in road width or construction that could hinder access to the Mall.
They claimed that the change in flyover alignment was arbitrary, driven by mala fide intentions, and detrimental to the Mall’s commercial viability. The change in design allegedly introduced a blind wall and narrowed the road in front of the Mall, violating both safety standards and the Master Plan guidelines.
However, the Court maintained that while commercial inconvenience might be regrettable, it does not outweigh the needs of public infrastructure development. Any judicial intervention in technically complex projects could lead to further delays, financial loss to the government, and public inconvenience.
"This Court is not equipped to sit in judgment over matters involving technical expertise. Decisions regarding project alignment, safety, and design fall within the exclusive domain of expert bodies."
Thus, the High Court refused to issue any directions to restrain the government from executing the revised flyover plan, reiterating the limited scope of judicial review in such technical matters.
APPEARANCE:
Vikram Sharma Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Dev Singh Advocate. Mr. S. Sanpreet Singh and Mr. Zaheer Abbas Khan Advocate, Advocate For Petitioner
Rahul Pant Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma Advocate Mr. Sunny Mahajan AdvocateFor Respondents
Case-Title: Palm Island Space Owners Welfare Association & Ors vs Union of India and others, 2025
