A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the limits of judicial review under Article 226 in matters involving technical and administrative decision-making based on expert opinion. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court of Kerala exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a load test on the Palarivattom Flyover despite the State Government having accepted the recommendation of a High-Level Expert Committee. The flyover, constructed on a National Highway and inaugurated in 2016, developed structural cracks within a year. Divergent expert opinions emerged. IIT Madras recommended rehabilitation using carbon fibre composite treatment, while Dr. E. Sreedharan proposed demolition and reconstruction with a guarantee of a 100-year service life.

To resolve this divergence, the State constituted a High-Level Committee of senior engineers, which evaluated all expert reports and concluded that demolition and reconstruction was preferable. The State accepted this recommendation. The contractor challenged this decision before the High Court, which directed a load test before demolition.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply settled principles of judicial review. Instead of examining arbitrariness or violation of Article 14, the High Court substituted its own view for that of duly appointed experts. The Court reaffirmed that when the State acts on the basis of expert committee recommendations, courts must exercise restraint and cannot re-evaluate technical decisions. The High Court’s interference was held to be unwarranted, and its order was set aside.

Keywords: Judicial Review, Administrative Discretion, Expert Committee, Infrastructure Law, Article 14, Technical Decision-Making

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose from the construction and subsequent structural deterioration of the Palarivattom Flyover situated on a National Highway in Kochi. The project was executed by the respondent contractor and inaugurated in October 2016. Within one year of operation, inspections conducted by the consultancy agency of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways reported that the flyover was in a distressed condition, exhibiting multiple cracks that warranted immediate attention.

Given the gravity of the findings, IIT Madras was appointed as an expert agency. It submitted reports suggesting that the flyover could be rehabilitated rather than demolished, recommending carbon fibre fabric composite treatment. During this period, Dr. E. Sreedharan, a renowned infrastructure expert, submitted an independent report advocating complete demolition and reconstruction, replacing RCC girders with PSC girders to ensure durability and offering a 100-year service life guarantee.

Faced with conflicting expert opinions, the State Government constituted a High-Level Technical Committee comprising senior engineers from the Public Works Department. This Committee critically evaluated all reports and concluded that reconstruction was preferable due to the extensive nature of structural distress and the absence of any assured post-repair service life under the IIT proposal. The State accepted this recommendation through a Government Order dated 25.10.2019.

The contractor challenged this decision before the High Court, leading to judicial scrutiny of administrative discretion in technical matters. The Supreme Court’s intervention thus centered on delineating the boundaries of judicial review where expert-driven policy decisions are involved .

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Palarivattom Flyover was constructed by the respondent contractor and opened for public use on 12 October 2016. Routine inspections conducted by the consultancy agency for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways revealed, by 16 March 2018, that the flyover had developed serious structural cracks, rendering it distressed.

In response, IIT Madras was appointed to assess the structural integrity of the flyover. IIT conducted various tests in accordance with IS Codes and IRC recommendations and concluded that the structure could be strengthened using carbon fibre composite treatment. It did not, however, specify the post-rehabilitation service life of the flyover.

Subsequently, Dr. E. Sreedharan submitted reports dated 03.07.2019 and 14.09.2019 recommending demolition and reconstruction. He rejected the IIT approach and asserted that only a complete replacement of RCC girders with PSC girders would ensure structural safety and longevity, offering a 100-year guarantee.

Due to these conflicting opinions, the State constituted a High-Level Committee of five senior PWD engineers. The Committee found that 97 out of 102 girders required strengthening, indicating extensive distress. It also noted that rehabilitation is generally suitable for older structures with limited defects, not for relatively new flyovers with widespread cracks. The Committee therefore endorsed Dr. Sreedharan’s proposal despite its higher cost.

The State accepted this recommendation and issued a Government Order. The contractor challenged the order, leading the High Court to direct a load test before demolition. This directive formed the basis of the appeal before the Supreme Court .

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the High Court exceeded the scope of judicial review by directing a load test despite the State acting on expert opinion?
ii) Whether acceptance of a High-Level Expert Committee report by the State amounted to arbitrariness under Article 14?
iii) Whether courts can substitute administrative decisions based on technical expertise with judicial directions?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the State Government had acted strictly on expert advice after constituting a High-Level Committee. It was argued that the High Court failed to apply settled principles of judicial review and instead undertook an assessment of technical merits. The appellants contended that no arbitrariness could be attributed to a decision based on expert consensus, and that judicial interference was unwarranted.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents submitted that the load test was mandatory under the contract to ascertain structural strength. It was argued that demolition without a load test would prejudice the contractor’s rights and foreclose the possibility of proving that rehabilitation was sufficient.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that the High Court misdirected itself by venturing into technical evaluation rather than examining whether the State’s decision violated Article 14. The Court observed that once a High-Level Expert Committee evaluates competing expert opinions and the State accepts its recommendation, courts must exercise restraint.

The Court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the decision itself. It found no material to suggest arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality in the State’s acceptance of the Committee’s report. The High Court’s direction for a load test was held to be an impermissible substitution of administrative judgment.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside both the main judgment and the review judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeals .

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

When the State Government takes a decision based on the recommendation of a duly constituted expert committee, courts exercising judicial review must not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary, irrational, or violative of Article 14. Courts cannot substitute their own views in matters involving technical expertise.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that judicial restraint is particularly necessary in infrastructure projects involving public safety and expert engineering assessment, as courts lack institutional competence to re-evaluate such technical matters.

c) GUIDELINES

i) Courts must confine judicial review to legality, rationality, and procedural propriety.
ii) Technical determinations based on expert opinion should not be reopened by courts.
iii) Administrative decisions supported by expert committees enjoy a presumption of validity.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the doctrine of judicial restraint in administrative law. It underscores that courts must respect expert-driven policy decisions, particularly in infrastructure and public works. The ruling provides clarity on the limits of judicial intervention and strengthens administrative autonomy while safeguarding constitutional scrutiny under Article 14 .

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i) State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/s RDS Project Limited & Ors., [2020] 6 S.C.R. 837

b) Important Statutes Referred

i) Constitution of India – Article 14