Public Interest Prevails Over Commercial Inconvenience: J&K High Court Upholds Design Flexibility in NH-144A Flyover Project

In a recent decision, in the case of Palm Island Space Owners Welfare Association & Ors vs Union of India and others, [WP(C ) No. 1588/2024], dated April 7, 2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu dismissed a writ petition challenging an alleged deviation in the construction of a flyover, Jammu–Akhnoor Road (NH-144A), holding that matters involving technical design and feasibility fall squarely within the exclusive domain of expert authorities and are not amenable to judicial review. The court emphasized that in the context of public infrastructure projects, the interests of the larger public must prevail over individual commercial inconvenience.

The petition had been filed by commercial property owners of Palm Island Mall, Jammu, seeking to restrain the respondents from altering the design of a 4-lane flyover project, originally approved under a Detailed Project Report (DPR). The petitioners alleged that the revised design would obstruct access to their premises and violate the sanctioned specifications.

The Court, while rejecting the petition, held that the viability and alignment of an infrastructure project are decisions that involve technical expertise, engineering judgment, and policy considerations, and courts cannot substitute their view. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty [(2011) 12 SCC 69], dated February 21, 2011, the Court reiterated that judicial forums are ill-equipped to assess whether a particular alignment is more viable or serves the public interest more effectively. It further stressed that the role of the court is confined to examining whether there has been any violation of the law or mala fides, neither of which was established in the present case.

The court found that the respondents had acted within the framework of the contract, specifically referring to Articles 13.1 and 13.2 of the concession agreement, which empowered the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to issue directions for modifications in the scope of work and required the contractor to submit revised proposals. The very structure of the concession agreement recognized the need for flexibility in execution, acknowledging that ground realities during infrastructure projects often necessitate alteration of original designs. Accordingly, the court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the DPR was binding and could not be modified after the award of the contract.

The court also gave considerable weight to the respondents’ reasons for deviating from the original merger plan. It accepted that adhering to the original plan would have entailed demolishing 450 meters of already constructed infrastructure, thereby incurring a significant financial loss approximating ₹50 crores and delaying the project by two to three years, causing significant inconvenience to the general public. The court noted that the decision to revise the alignment was taken to avoid redundant demolition, reduce costs, and ensure continuity of public infrastructure, which are valid and compelling grounds that fall within the discretion of the executing authority.

The court also considered the larger policy context by referring to Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits the grant of injunctions that would delay or impede infrastructure projects. Citing N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, [(2022) 6 SCC 127], dated March 21, 2022, the Court emphasized that judicial interference with infrastructure execution must be minimal, particularly where changes are made for valid reasons and without contravention of statutory norms.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioners were asserting a private commercial interest, which cannot override the collective interest of the public in the timely and cost-effective completion of a vital highway project. It noted that entertaining such objections would set a precedent for individual stakeholders to resist modifications at various locations, thereby frustrating the very purpose of integrated infrastructure development. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

This ruling affirms the judicial restraint exercised in matters involving technical and policy decisions pertaining to infrastructure projects, absent demonstrable illegality or mala fides. It reiterates that private commercial inconveniences cannot override the paramount consideration of public interest and infrastructural advancement.