Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere in road alignment absent proven mala fides.

The petitioner, owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 203, challenged the construction of a culvert under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna in Village Lund, District Sheopur

He alleged that while the sanctioned plan required the culvert to be built on Survey Nos. 192 and 193, it was illegally constructed on Survey No. 204, which he used to access his fields

Procedural history shows conflicting reports: a Tehsildar’s report (2017) suggested the culvert was on No. 204 but did not affect the petitioner, while a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Panchnama (2017) stated it was on the sanctioned Survey Nos. 192/193.

The petition was dismissed against the contractor (Respondent No. 6) in 2020 for non-compliance with a peremptory order

The road and culvert have been operational since 2017

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, should interfere with the technical alignment and alleged deviation of a public road project from its sanctioned plan.

2. Whether the petitioner established a violation of legal rights or mala fides sufficient to warrant the demolition and reconstruction of public infrastructure.

Courts are not equipped to decide the viability, feasibility, or particular alignment of highway projects, as these are the province of expert bodies

Judicial review is limited to "rarest of rare cases" where the project is ex-facie contrary to law or tainted by proven mala fides

This principle extends to state-level expert bodies like the M.P. Rural Road Development Authority (MPRRDA)

The Court reasoned that the MPRRDA is a professionally managed expert body whose technical decisions regarding road alignment deserve judicial deference

It noted that the petitioner failed to prove mala fides, especially since the petition against the contractor had already been dismissed

Regarding the conflicting spot reports, the Court observed that Survey No. 204 is government-owned land, just like the sanctioned sites

the petitioner chose not to participate in the SDM’s spot inspection despite receiving notice

The Court emphasized that even if a deviation occurred, it did not infringe upon the petitioner's rights as his private land (No. 203) remained unaffected, and no other villagers objected to the construction

Given that the infrastructure had been operational since 2017, the Court found no justification for interference

The High Court declined to interfere with the expert body's execution of the project and dismissed the writ petition