APHC010097792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 46 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-11 [3483] Harivanam Adinarayana Reddy ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Murthy, Sr. Counsel Advocates for Respondents : GP for Roads & Buildings, GP for Land Acquisition & GP for Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 5th March 2025 P C : The present Writ Petition has been filed purportedly in public interest wherein the decision of the official respondents in granting approval for laying down of bypass road near Adoni connecting NH-167 (Hagiri-Jadcherla Road) from Km.62 to Km.71 has been questioned as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.46 of 2025 It is stated that the action of the respondents in giving approval to the laying of the bypass roads was not bonafide and was done with a view to benefit “unknown big stakeholders”. The scope of interference by Constitutional Courts in the matters concerning infrastructure projects and in particular the laying down of roads, their viability and their efficacy is no longer res integra. In Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and others1, the Apex Court held: “28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of national highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” 1 (2011) 12 SCC 69 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.46 of 2025 Considering the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, we do not find any merit in the present petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 4 HCJ & RCJ W.P.(PIL) No.46 of 2025 389 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.(PIL) No.46 of 2025 Dt: 05.03.2025 kbs