VERDICTUM.

IN
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 5201 OF 2024 (GM-RES) PIL
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. IRANNA
S/O KALAKAPPA NIDAGUNDI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O 1447/2, ARAKERI ONI
VIDYA SAGAR NAGARA
YELBURGA, KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL – 583 236

2. SRI SIDDARAMESH
S/O DODDAPPA HADAPADA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O YELBURGA, KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL – 583 236
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI BHANU PRAKASH H V, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
TRANSPORT BHAWAN, 1
PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI – 110 001

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
 VERDICTUM.IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
NO.32, 2ND FLOOR
KSCFL BUILDING
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 001

4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
DHARWAD – 580 001

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL – 583 231

6. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001

7. KOPPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583 231

8. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

NHAI, SUB DIVISION
YELBURGA, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583 236

9. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL NODAL

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS AND SECRETARY GENERAL
INDIAN ROAD CONGRESS
KAMAKOTI MARGA, SECTOR 6
R K PURAM, NEW DELHI – 110 022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2, 5 & 6
SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 & 9)
 VERDICTUM.IN
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE
STEPS TO TAKE ACTION TO STOP THE FURTHER PROCESS OF
ROAD CONSTRUCTION ON BYPASS OPTION TO 4 AT ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Padmanabha V.Mahale

with learned advocate Mr.H.V.Bhanu Prakash for the petitioners,

learned Additional Government Advocate Ms.Niloufer Akbar for

respondent No.2-the State and its authorities-respondent Nos.5

and 6 and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr.H.Shanthi

Bhushan for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 9.

2. The present petition filed by two private individuals-

petitioners herein, is the invocation of public interest jurisdiction of

this Court.

3. What is prayed in the petition is to direct the authorities to

take steps to stop the further process of road construction. The

petitioners are aggrieved by construction of bypass option No.4.

The road is being constructed upon clearance of the Government

 VERDICTUM.IN
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It is the

bypass road related to National Highway NH-367 which widens the

two-lane with paved shoulder from 10.00 km. to 33.00 km. from

Bhanapura village to Gaddanakeri section-NH367 of Bagalkot.

3.1 The petitioners are the residents of Yelburga. Their

grievance is that in the Notification dated 03.02.2023 issued by the

Ministry regarding construction of the said road, four bypass

options were planned out. It is the case that option Nos.1 and 3

are out of central point of Yalburga city. However, the National

Highway Authority has selected bypass option No.4.

3.2 According to the petitioners because of selection of such

option, the road passes through the agricultural tube-wells and

travels through the middle of agricultural lands with water wells,

etc. It is contended that the bypass alignment is wrongly planned

out and is contrary to the guidelines in the subject.

3.3 On the premise of the above basic pleadings, in addition to

seeking prayer for stopping of construction of the road, it is further

prayed to require the authorities to adopt option No.4 for laying

down the Yalburga bypass road. It is claimed that thereby only the
 VERDICTUM.IN
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

rights of the pedestrians, general public and the users of the road

could be preserved.

4. The record of the petitioners reflects that earlier also, in

relation to the same subject matter and the grievance, Writ Petition

No.17969 of 2023 was filed by the very petitioners which was

withdrawn by the petitioners as per the order dated 06.10.2023. As

per the liberty reserved by the Court, this petition is again filed.

5. The public interest jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be

attracted for the prayer that road construction option is not properly

selected and therefore, manner of laying road is wrong requiring

stoppage of road construction work.

5.1 Indeed, the exercise of public interest jurisdiction by the

Court does not extend to all categories of cases. The public interest

litigation originated with an object to secure justice for the poor and

weaker sections of the society, not in position to protect their

interests and enforce their rights. It is supposed to be a litigation

‘in the interest of public’. This jurisdiction could be invoked only in

such cases where the relief is connected with the weaker or

downtrodden segment of the society, more particularly to operate in

 VERDICTUM.IN
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

the areas where the facets and forms of human rights or basic

rights are found to have been violated and corrective actions are

required on.

5.2 In public interest litigation, the concerns underlying are for

class of people such as the bonded labourers, under-trial prisoners,

prison inmates and such deprived class of the society. Public

interest litigation may also be necessary where the judicial

intervention is necessary for protection of and for sanctity of

democratic institutions and their independence vis-à-vis the other

two wings of the democratic governance. The public interest

litigation may become relevant also in the environmental areas

because the adverse effects has direct nexus with the enjoyment of

right and the concomitant rights under Article 21 of the Constitution,

by the public at large.

5.3 The public interest litigation is, however, not a pill or panacea

for all wrongs, it is rightly said. Where the field and functions are

that of Executive, the Court will not be justified to readily make

inroads in the domain of the Executive by invoking its public

interest jurisdiction and interfere in executive functions unless there

exists strong reasons to deviate or depart therefrom.

 VERDICTUM.IN
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

5.4 In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee vs C.K.

Rajan ([2003] 7 SCC 546), the Supreme Court observed,

“Mr. Subba Rao referred to State of Kerala

v. N.M. Thomas ([1976] 2 SCC 310) for the
proposition that court is also a ‘State’ within
the meaning of Article 12 but that would not
mean that in a given case the court shall
assume the role of the executive
government of the State. Statutory functions
are assigned to the State by the legislature
and not by the court. The court while
exercising its jurisdiction ordinarily must
remind itself about the doctrine of
separation of powers which, however,
although does not mean that the court shall
not step in in any circumstance whatsoever
but the court while exercising its power
must also remind itself about the rule of
self-restraint. The court, as indicated
hereinbefore, ordinarily is reluctant to
assume the functions of the statutory
functionaries. It allows them to perform
their duties at the first instance.”
(para 67)

5.5 The public interest litigation has its own purpose to achieve

and cannot be used as a tool to substitute or take control of the

executive functions. The Court cannot take upon itself the task of

statutory or executive authorities in the name of exercising public

interest jurisdiction. Even if litigation is brought as

non-individualistic, in all cases it may not become entertainable as

public interest litigation for that very reason only, unless the issue
 VERDICTUM.IN
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

touches the wider areas of welfare and upliftment of the weaker

sections, violation of fundamental rights, human rights, protection

of democratic institutions, environmental aspects and such other

categories of such larger public interest. Where it is the function of

the Executive, the Court must follow the rule of self-restraint unless

overriding circumstances are shown to require exercise of powers

in public interest.

5.6 In Vikram S/o Raghavesh Sirur and 86 others vs. Union

of India and others which was Writ Petition No.4352 of 2022

decided on 21.09.2023 by the Division Bench of this Court, the

prayer was issuance of direction to set aside the implementation of

the project of elevated corridor which was advanced before the

Court invoking the public interest jurisdiction.

5.7 This Court observed in paragraph 4 of the order as under,

“ … we decline indulgence in the matter

inasmuch as the construction project in
question essentially relates to the domain of
Executive which will have the advantage of
technology, feasibility and finance; courts by
their very nature are ill-suited in deciding
those factors, if called upon. The Apex Court
in INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI vs. RAJNARAIN,
(1975) 2 SCC 159 has identified the doctrine
of separation of powers being an essential
feature of our Constitution and therefore each
 VERDICTUM.IN
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

of the State Organs has to show deference to

the decisions of the other, unless breach of
binding Rule of Conduct is demonstrated.
Learned DSG is right in contending that the
Judiciary cannot substitute its decisions for
those of the Executive in matters like this, by
their very nature.”

6. While various grounds are raised in the petition to object

laying down of the lane and to assert that the road should be laid in

a particular fashion, it has to be observed that planning out the

road, its width and length, deciding its layout and the alignment,

and the entire design of the road, etc. are the areas to be

addressed by the Executive. That are basically the functions of the

Executive. The functions of this kind are preceded by planning and

is an exercise in expert domain. The field is alien to the jurisdiction

of the Court of law. The courts would not generally make an inroad

in the pure executive decisions of such nature and kind, unless

demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary, evidently irrational or

voilative of the fundamental rights.

6.1 Even otherwise, the subject matter cannot become the realm

of public interest. Laying down the road is itself an act in public

interest. The petitioners cannot come before the Court to plead

that the alignment of road should be done in a particular way, or

 VERDICTUM.IN
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14873-DB
WP No. 5201 of 2024

that a particular option of planning should be adopted by the

authorities. The Court cannot give such directions. No enforceable

right could be said to be existing, much less it is possible to seek

any right in public interest realm.

6.2 Not only the project of laying road cannot be arrested as it

would be against the public interest, the directions of the kind and

nature prayed for by the petitioners are not liable to be granted

since they are the functions falling with the realm of the Executive.

7. The present public interest litigation is misconceived and

meritless. It is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-
JUDGE

AHB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5