Gujarat HC Upholds Expert Decisions in Panjrapole Flyover Project

The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dharini Shah & Ors. v State of Gujarat & Ors., (C/WPPIL/43/2024), dated Janaury 17, 2025, recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the construction of a flyover at the Panjrapole Junction in Ahmedabad. The court held that the judiciary cannot substitute its judgment for that of technical experts and administrative authorities in matters of infrastructure development. Emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in such cases, the court affirmed that the decision of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (the “AMC”), the respondents, to proceed with the project was rational, based on expert assessments, and aligned with public interest.

The flyover, spanning 652 meters along Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Marg (IIM Road), is intended to address severe traffic congestion at the Panjrapole Junction. A group of 20 residents (the “Petitioners”), argued that the project was unnecessary given declining traffic volumes and cited concerns over environmental degradation. They relied on the 2017 guidelines of the Indian Road Congress (the “the IRC Guidelines’), which recommend flyovers only at intersections with traffic exceeding 10,000 Passenger Car Units (PCUs) per hour.

The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat dismissed the PIL by reiterating the principle that judicial review in matters of technical and policy decisions is limited to assessing the fairness of the decision-making process and does not extend to questioning the merits of the decision itself. The court noted that the petitioners’ arguments primarily challenged the decision to construct the flyover rather than the process employed. The court made it clear that it is neither permissible nor practical for the judiciary to interfere in technical matters, such as traffic feasibility and urban planning, which are within the exclusive domain of expert bodies and administrative authorities. 

Additionally, the court also dismissed the petitioners’ reliance on the IRC Guidelines, noting that these are not binding and cannot override expert recommendations tailored to local conditions. Further, the court acknowledged the environmental impact of tree felling for the flyover construction but accepted AMC’s mitigation plan, which included the transplantation and planting of trees. It emphasized that sustainable development involves trade-offs and that projects should not be blocked if adequate measures are in place.

The ruling reiterated the principle of judicial deference to administrative and technical authorities, particularly when decisions are supported by expert evaluations and align with the broader public interest and the importance of balancing environmental considerations with the need for urban development.