The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the reopening of a median cut on National Highway No. 44. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra ruled that the court could not substitute its opinion for an expert road safety report that recommended the closure.
Background of the Case
The petition, filed by Ashok Puri, sought a direction against the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to reopen a median cut on the Jhansi-Lalitpur Road section of NH-44, located in front of Gram Khari, Baijpur Ramgarh. The petitioner submitted that the median cut, which previously served the village, was closed by the NHAI following several road accidents in the vicinity. This closure, the petition argued, was causing significant inconvenience to the local commuters.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Anil Kumar Dubey and Ram Milan Dwivedi, contended that due to the closure, villagers and commuters are forced to travel an additional distance of approximately one and a half kilometers to reach the next available U-turn. They argued that this created hardship and requested the court to direct the respondents to reconsider and reopen the median cut for public convenience.
Representing the National Highway Authority of India, counsel Pranjal Mehrotra submitted that the decision to close the median cut was not arbitrary. It was based on a formal road safety audit undertaken by a specialized firm following complaints about safety concerns. The audit firm’s report recommended “closing down median opening, which was in front of the retail outlet as besides the same being dangerous, the same was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court, after considering the submissions from both parties and reviewing the report produced by the NHAI, found no grounds to entertain the petition. The bench firmly stated that administrative decisions based on expert technical assessments are generally beyond the scope of judicial review.
In its judgment, the Court observed, “the decision has been taken based on an expert report and this Court cannot substitute its opinion qua the expert report.”
Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding the inconvenience caused by the increased travel distance, the bench remarked that it was not excessive in the context of a national highway. “Further, so far as the distance of other cut at a distance of one and half kilometer is concerned, on a National Highway a distance of one and half kilometer cannot be said to be too excessive for this Court to interfere,” the Court stated.
The bench concluded its analysis by highlighting that the closure ultimately served the welfare of the villagers by mitigating accident risks. The judgment noted, “Even otherwise, not having a median cut just in front of the entrance of the village essentially is to the welfare of the villagers as the same necessarily would result in accident.”
Final Decision
Finding no reason to interfere with the NHAI’s decision, which was grounded in an expert safety audit, the High Court dismissed the petition. The case, Ashok Puri v. Union of India and 3 others (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 801 of 2025), was accordingly disposed of on September 4, 2025.
