Vikram vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, a group of individuals, filed a writ petition challenging the construction of an elevated corridor project in Hubli city. The project involved the construction of an elevated corridor on NH 63, NH 4, and NH 218, aimed at decongesting traffic. The Union of India, through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, refuted the petition's averments. The project was stated to be halfway through, with a tender cost of Rs. 1,96,99,00,000 (including 12% GST). Financial progress was reported at 41.27% (Rs. 81,28,83,522) and physical progress at 43.55% as of September 20, 2023. The petitioners argued that the project was not serving its intended purpose and was being executed contrary to the Indian Road Congress Code.

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that the construction project falls within the domain of the Executive, which is better equipped to handle matters of technology, feasibility, and finance. The Court invoked the doctrine of separation of powers, citing Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Rajnarain, stating that courts are ill-suited to substitute their decisions for those of the Executive in such matters. The Court found the petitioners' argument that the project did not serve its avowed object unconvincing, emphasizing the substantial investment and the expertise involved in finalizing such a large project. The Court also held that the alleged violation of the Indian Road Congress Code was legally untenable, as the Code is not promulgated under any statute, and its breach, similar to the Karnataka PWD Code, does not give a justiciable cause of action, citing State of Mysore vs. Fernandez. The Court noted the assurance from the authorities that all norms would be scrupulously followed and that petitioners could bring any violations to their notice. The Court concluded that interference at this stage would be prejudicial to public interest and the state exchequer, as observed by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. UOI.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a large-scale infrastructure project that is substantially underway, considering the doctrine of separation of powers and the expertise of the executive branch in such matters? 2. Whether the petitioners' contention that the project does not serve its avowed object is a valid ground for judicial intervention, especially given the substantial financial and physical progress? 3. Whether the alleged violation of the Indian Road Congress Code, which is not promulgated under a specific statute, constitutes a legally tenable ground for challenging the project? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the project, as envisioned, did not serve its intended purpose. They also contended that the project was being undertaken contrary to the prescriptions of the Indian Road Congress Code. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Union of India argued that the project was a matter within the domain of the Executive, which possesses the necessary expertise in technology, feasibility, and finance. They contended that courts are ill-suited to decide such matters and that interfering at this stage would be prejudicial to public interest and the state exchequer. They also submitted that the Indian Road Congress Code is not promulgated under any statute and its breach does not give a justiciable cause of action.