Courts cannot interfere in technical matters regarding canal alignment and infrastructure projects absent proven arbitrariness.

The Appellants (Gram Panchayat Mohgaon, its Sarpanch, and two residents) challenged the construction of a canal under the Rajeev Gandhi Sanwardhan Scheme (Samoda Diversion).

The project originated from a 2007 survey and a Detailed Project Report (DPR) approved by competent authorities.

The Appellants filed WPC No. 6123 of 2025 alleging that the canal project adversely affected them and that the project, dormant for 21 years, was suddenly revived without proper hearing or consideration of a technical expert report provided by them.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 15.01.2026, holding the matter fell within the technical domain of experts.

The Appellants subsequently filed this Writ Appeal against said dismissal.

1. Whether the selection of the canal’s alignment (straight vs. curved) is a matter subject to judicial review or falls within the exclusive domain of technical experts.

2. Whether the construction of the canal infringed upon any fundamental rights of the Appellants warranting interference under Article 226.

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint in matters involving technical expertise and policy decisions.

It held that technical projects—specifically those based on expert assessments like a Detailed Project Report (DPR)—cannot be interfered with by the Court unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness, illegality, or infringement of fundamental rights.

The court underscored that the judiciary lacks the competence to substitute its opinion for that of technical experts in engineering and alignment matters.

The Court examined the findings of the learned Single Judge, who determined that the canal project was executed based on a DPR prepared by experts.

The Court found that the Appellants failed to provide cogent material demonstrating any illegality or arbitrariness in the government’s execution.

Regarding the Appellants' claim that the project was dormant for 21 years, the Court noted that the project was a continuation of a scheme initiated in 2007 with existing maps and approvals.

The Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the internal technicalities of the canal’s alignment are unsuitable for judicial interference.

Furthermore, it observed that stalling such public works projects leads to an unnecessary financial burden on the public exchequer and that the Appellants' fundamental rights were not infringed by the construction.

It held that the learned Single Judge did not commit any legal or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petition as the matter was one of technical expertise.

Consequently, the Court found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it.

No costs were awarded.