The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the road alignment under Section-3 of the Showuba-Pangsha 2-lane road project, part of the East-West Corridor Road connecting Nagaland. The PIL, filed by Vitolu Sema and Jevito Achumi on behalf of 17 villages, raised concerns over the alignment proposed for Section-3, which covers the stretch from Mukalimi to Zunheboto.
The petitioners argued that the approved alignment (Option-II) would benefit only three villages, whereas the alternative alignment (Option-I) would serve 17 villages, impacting a population of approximately 19,000. The petitioners contended that the approved alignment violated Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) guidelines, which prioritize development in less developed regions, and claimed that the decision was arbitrary, ignoring the needs of the affected villages.
According to the petition, the two proposed alignments for Section-3 are: Option-I, which passes through 17 villages, and Option-II, which passes through just three villages, benefiting a much smaller population. The petitioners sought to have the decision to approve Option-II reconsidered and urged that the concerns of the 17 villages be addressed.
In response, the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) defended Option-II, stating that it was technically more feasible. The State Government also supported this decision, following a joint survey conducted by experts from various departments that confirmed the alignment’s viability.
The respondents, including the State Government and NHIDCL, opposed the PIL, asserting that the alignment of roads is a technical matter beyond judicial review. They cited previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Essar Steel Limited v. Union of India and Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy, which limits judicial interference in technical matters.
After reviewing the case, the bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Manish Choudhury ruled that road alignment decisions fall within the executive’s domain and that the courts lacked the expertise to intervene. The court also noted that the State Government and NHIDCL had appropriately considered local objections and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any violation of MoRTH guidelines or bad faith in the decision-making process. (With inputs from India legal)