Absence of technical rebuttal to IIT safety report precludes judicial intervention in interstate bridge structural challenges.

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that a 55-year-old bridge on NH-719 connecting Bhind (M.P.) and Etawah (U.P.) is in a dangerous, dilapidated condition, posing a threat to the life and liberty of commuters.

The petitioner sought directions to restrain heavy vehicle traffic and initiate new construction.

Respondents No. 9 and 10 submitted a technical report from IIT Kanpur (dated Feb 3, 2024), which declared the structure safe for designed loads but recommended frequent inspections and restrictions on braking/stopping of heavy vehicles.

A preliminary objection was raised regarding territorial jurisdiction, as the bridge is physically situated within District Etawah, Uttar Pradesh.

1. Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding a bridge physically located in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. Whether the bridge in question is in such a dilapidated condition as to warrant judicial intervention to restrain its use.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically Clause (2), which empowers a High Court to issue writs if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territorial jurisdiction, regardless of the seat of government or authority.

The court adhered to the principle of judicial restraint in technical matters, emphasizing that expert technical reports (such as those from IIT) carry significant weight unless rebutted by equivalent expert evidence.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court reasoned that since the bridge connects Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, citizens from M.P. use it daily; therefore, any potential accident or structural failure would adversely affect them, constituting a "part of the cause of action" within M.P. under Article 226(2).

On the merits, the court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any expert report to counter the findings of IIT Kanpur.

The court even offered to appoint an independent international inspection team at the petitioner's expense, which the petitioner declined due to financial constraints. Consequently, in the absence of evidence contradicting the IIT report, the court found no basis to declare the bridge unsafe.

The petition was disposed of as the technical report confirmed the bridge's safety. The court directed the authorities to strictly comply with the "word of advice" provided by IIT Kanpur, specifically regarding frequent inspections and ensuring smooth movement (no stopping) of heavy vehicles to prevent lateral load distress.