PIL Not A Tool To Substitute/Take Control Of Executive Functions: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Road Construction
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the construction of a road stating that a PIL cannot be used as a tool to substitute or take control of the executive functions.
The Court explained that the petition's subject matter did not fall within the realm of public interest, as laying down the road was inherently an act of public interest. Consequently, it could not be pleaded before the Court that the road's alignment should follow specific criteria or that authorities should adopt a particular planning option, as the Court could not issue such directions.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, “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 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.”
Sr. Advocate Padmanabha V. Mahale represented the petitioners, while A.G.A Niloufer Akbar appeared for the respondents.
A petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to stop the construction of a bypass road near Yelburga, Karnataka. The petitioners, residents of Yelburga, contested that the chosen route passed through agricultural lands, affecting tube wells and water wells.
The Court explained that public interest litigation should be reserved for cases directly impacting the welfare of marginalised communities or involving fundamental rights violations.
“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,” the Court held.
The Court asserted that the matter primarily fell within the executive domain as decisions regarding road construction, including route selection, were best left to the expertise of the executive.
Noting that “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,” the Court stated that it “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.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL.
Cause Title: Sri. Iranna & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:14873-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Padmanabha V. Mahale; Advocate Bhanu Prakash H V
Respondents: A.G.A Niloufer Akbar; D.S.G.I H.Shanthi Bhushan
