Courts cannot substitute their wisdom for technical expert decisions of authorities in highway alignment and construction projects.

The petitioners, residents of District Udhampur, filed a writ petition challenging the ongoing construction of a stretch on the Chenani–Sudhmahadev Section of NH-244.

The project, awarded to respondent No. 6 (ECI-SRM Projects) in 2018, involved "Open Box Cuts" (deep U-shaped trenches) at four specific locations.

During execution, soil stability issues arose.

An expert geologist, Sh. K.S. Jamwal, recommended "realignment/detouring" or tunnels instead of box cuts to avoid landslide risks.

While the Authority’s Engineer (Respondent No. 5) and the General Manager (Respondent No. 4) initially endorsed realignment for three sections.

The Managing Director of NHIDCL ultimately decided to proceed with the original box-cut plan, supplemented by additional land acquisition (1.86 hectares) for slope stabilization measures.

The petitioners sought a direction to compel the respondents to adopt the realignment/detouring proposal.

1. Whether the Court can interject in technical engineering decisions regarding highway alignment and construction methods based on varying expert recommendations.

2. Whether the decision of NHIDCL to proceed with the original alignment (Open Box Cuts) with additional safety measures was arbitrary or lacked bona fides.

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

It relied on a catena of Supreme Court precedents, including Narmada Bachao Anodolan v. Union of India, Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., and Rajiv Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, which establish that courts should not substitute their own views for those of technical experts or interfere in economic/infrastructure projects unless the decision is palpably arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions.

The court also noted the standard for "sponsored litigation" and the requirement of bona fides in PIL-style challenges to public projects.

The Court observed that the petitioners' challenge was primarily based on internal correspondence and an initial expert report by a geologist appointed by the contractor.

The Court found that the respondent authorities (NHIDCL) had duly considered the stability risks and adjusted the project by acquiring additional land for slope protection rather than abandoning the original route.

It reasoned that the choice between "realignment" and "box cuts with stabilization" is a technical trade-off involving financial, temporal, and geological factors.

The Court highlighted that it lacks the competence to assume the "driver seat" and direct engineering specifics.

Furthermore, the Court expressed suspicion that the litigation was "sponsored" by the contractor (Respondent No. 6) or the engineer (Respondent No. 5) to bypass contract costs or delays, noting the petitioners' unexplained access to internal official documents.

It answered the issues by stating it cannot fault-find with NHIDCL’s final decision to proceed with the original alignment, provided safety measures are implemented.

The petition was dismissed, and the interim status-quo order dated 19.05.2023 was vacated.

The Court concluded that accountability for future mishaps would rest with NHIDCL, but judicial interference at the construction stage was unwarranted.