Summary
The Court set aside the High Court’s direction for a load test before reconstruction of the distressed Palarivattom flyover. The State had accepted a five-member expert committee’s reasoned assessment of competing technical reports. Judicial review required examination of arbitrariness under Article 14, rather than substituting the court’s preferred technical course merely to avoid controversy. The pending writ petitions were directed to be disposed of within six months.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly reviewed the State’s acceptance of expert advice on flyover reconstruction.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaProvided the standard of review for alleged arbitrariness in the State’s expert-based decision. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Held
- The High Court should have applied established judicial review standards and examined whether the State’s decision violated Article 14. It instead entered the technical merits and directed a load test on the ground that it would avoid further controversy. (¶ 8)
- A five-member committee of engineering experts had considered the divergent reports, including the scale of strengthening and assured service life, before recommending reconstruction. Acceptance of that expert assessment was not shown to be arbitrary on these facts. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 9)
- The load-test judgment and its review judgment therefore could not stand. The writ petitions remaining before the High Court were to be disposed of within six months. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court judgment and review judgment set aside. Pending writ petitions to be disposed of within six months.