Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Alternative Interchange for Chittoor–Thatchur Highway

Court declines to redesign a highway interchange

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a different location for an interchange on the Chittoor–Thatchur Greenfield Highway. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan found no sufficient ground to interfere with the National Highways Authority of India’s approved alignment or to require a fresh comparative feasibility exercise.

The decision concerns the limits of judicial review of infrastructure planning. The Court did not hold that highway authorities are beyond legal scrutiny. Rather, it concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances, such as illegality or mala fides, that could justify judicial intervention in a technical alignment decision.

Project and competing locations

The proposed six-lane, access-controlled road forms part of the NH-716B Chittoor–Thatchur corridor under the Bharatmala programme. NHAI selected an interchange at kilometre 86+180 near Appalaraju Kandriga and Sankarapuram, in Tirupati district. The selection followed an accessibility study by an Independent Engineer and received in-principle approval from NHAI headquarters.

The petitioners proposed kilometre 83.000/83.200 near the Govardhanagiri Limited Vertical Underpass junction. They said this alternative would improve travel for local residents, pilgrims, tourists, industrial workers and transporters, and provide connections to other national highways and important regional destinations. They offered land for the alternative arrangement and sought an independent comparison of traffic, environmental, social and financial effects.

Acquisition and objections

The approved interchange led to steps for acquisition of about 3.49 hectares. A notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, had been issued. The petitioners argued that the final declaration under Section 3D had not yet been issued, leaving room for the authorities to consider their later representation.

NHAI responded that no objections had been filed within the prescribed period under Section 3C. It maintained that the interchange was chosen after a technical study, that no habitation was being displaced and that the location did not raise the forest, wildlife or water-crossing difficulties alleged by the petitioners. Those assertions were part of the authority’s case and were evaluated by the Bench.

The Court’s approach to technical evidence

The Bench noted that NHAI is a statutory authority with specialised expertise in developing and maintaining highways. A court hearing a PIL is not ordinarily equipped to replace engineering assessments with its own preference for a particular alignment. The proper judicial inquiry is whether the decision-making process suffers from a legally recognised defect, rather than which of two possible interchanges appears more convenient to the judges.

The Court also considered the petitioners’ ownership of land near the alternative site. It did not accept that a charitable character, by itself, eliminated every possibility of private interest. Equally, the judgment should not be described as a finding of fraud or corruption by the petitioners; the Court addressed the material before it in deciding whether interference was warranted.

Why no further feasibility direction was issued

The petitioners sought a direction requiring authorities to consider their September 2026 representation before further acquisition steps. The Court declined even that limited direction because the record disclosed an existing professional assessment and no sufficient basis to reopen the location decision. The fact that the final Section 3D notification had not yet been issued did not, in the circumstances, require a fresh examination.

The High Court dismissed the PIL as lacking merit and closed the associated applications. It did not impose costs. Its decision leaves the existing statutory and administrative process for the approved interchange undisturbed, subject to any remedy available under law.

Practical significance for infrastructure challenges

The ruling illustrates the difference between a genuine legal challenge and a request that a court prefer one technical solution over another. An affected person may raise timely statutory objections and point to concrete environmental, procedural or legal defects. Merely proposing a different design or offering land for it will not necessarily establish a case for judicial substitution of the authority’s assessment.

For project authorities, the case underscores the value of contemporaneous feasibility studies, reasoned technical decisions and compliance with land-acquisition procedures. For challengers, it highlights the importance of using statutory objection mechanisms promptly and supporting claims of illegality with evidence.