Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, very severely assailed the order of the learned single Judge. His first contention is that firstly, the petitioner/1st respondent's case, on facts, is that the alignment of the road was actually recommended to be changed by the 3rd respondent and this being a basic premise. the petitioner's further case was that the action on the part of the appellant herein in not accepting the report of the 3rd respondent was mala fide as it was an outcome of the pressure. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the basic premise of the petitioner is itself totally incorrect. The learned Senior Counsel asserts that the report cannot be so read as to be recommending the shift in the alignment of the road and, therefore, the learned Judge has completely erred in comprehending the report of the 3rd respondent. According to the learned Senior Counsel, once this position is obtained, there would be no question of the appellant acting under any kind of pressure extraneous or otherwise. He points out that the learned Judge has completely erred in inferring such a pressure much less from the so-called report. Secondly, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the shifting of the road in fact would be hazardous as it would introduce two curves, which would be defeating the very basic purpose of laying the said express highway. The learned Senior Counsel points out that it cannot be forgotten that right in the middle of the road, there goes the railway track and the curves of the railway track would also be proving hazardous. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel submits that there was no jurisdiction in the learned single Judge to direct the shifting of the alignment of the road so as to save a particular area at the cost of another area. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the logic of saving more terraced houses by shifting the alignment is a faulty and defective logic. The learned Senior Counsel says that it is not for this Court to decide the alignment of the roads and that is the task of the experts in the field and in the absence of such an expertise, the Court should have been slow to give a direction as it did.