Supreme Court overturns Kerala High Court order for load test on Palarivattom Flyover: State of Kerala vs. RDS Project Limited (22 September 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 22 September 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 684

Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Navin Sinha, J., and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a High Court direct a load test of a flyover when the State Government, based on an expert committee’s report, has decided to demolish and reconstruct it? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent case concerning the Palarivattom Flyover in Kerala. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of respecting expert opinions in technical matters. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha, and Justice Indira Banerjee, with Justice Nariman authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Palarivattom Flyover in Cochin, Kerala, constructed by Respondent No. 1, was inaugurated on 12 October 2016. After about a year, a consultancy agency for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways reported on 16 March 2018, that the flyover was in a distressed condition with several cracks. The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras, was appointed as an expert agency, which suggested a carbon fibre fabric composite treatment for repairs. However, Dr. E. Sreedharan, in a report dated 3 July 2019, recommended demolishing and reconstructing the flyover with PSC girders for a 100-year guarantee. A High-Level Committee was then formed by the State Government to evaluate these conflicting reports.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition in the Kerala High Court challenging the State Government’s decision to demolish and reconstruct the flyover. The High Court, noting the conflicting expert opinions and a vigilance inquiry alleging corruption, directed a load test to ascertain the flyover’s strength before any further action. The High Court reasoned that a load test was necessary to avoid further controversy and protect the rights of all stakeholders. The High Court directed the government to conduct a load test through a qualified agency, with the expenses borne by the petitioner in WP (C) No. 26030/2019. The State of Kerala appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of judicial review and the deference courts should give to expert opinions in technical matters. The High Court considered the terms of the original tender, specifically clause 11, which likely dealt with testing and quality control. However, the Supreme Court focused on whether the High Court overstepped its boundaries by directing a load test when the State Government had already made a decision based on the report of a High-Level Committee of experts.

Arguments

Arguments of the State of Kerala:

• The State Government argued that it had formed a High-Level Committee of experts to examine the reports of IIT Madras and Dr. E. Sreedharan.
• The Committee, after detailed consideration, recommended demolishing and reconstructing the flyover.
• The State Government accepted this recommendation and thus, it was not arbitrary.

Arguments of Respondent No. 1 (M/S RDS Project Limited):

• The contractor argued that the cracks in the girders could be repaired and would not affect the bridge’s strength.
• They contended that a load test was necessary to ascertain the actual strength of the flyover.
• They argued that demolishing the structure would eliminate the possibility of such a test.

Arguments of Respondent No. 3 (KITCO):

• KITCO, the consultant, also supported the need for a load test to determine the flyover’s strength.
• They argued that demolishing the flyover without a load test would be premature.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing a load test of the flyover, when the State Government had already decided to demolish and reconstruct it based on the recommendation of an expert committee.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

“The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The primary authority relied upon was the report of the High-Level Committee of experts formed by the State Government.

Judgment

“How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?”

“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”

The Court relied heavily on the High-Level Committee’s report. The Court observed that the Committee was composed of experts, including engineers and a Senior Structural Engineer, who had carefully considered the reports of IIT Madras and Dr. E. Sreedharan. The Court emphasized that the Committee’s conclusion was well-reasoned and that the State Government’s decision to accept it was not arbitrary.

The Supreme Court stated that the High Court, instead of applying the parameters of judicial review, went into the matter itself and stated that it is better to have a “load test conducted to avoid any further controversy in the matter”. The Supreme Court held that given the fact that an Expert Committee, which is a High level Committee of five experts was set up to go into the divergent opinions of IIT Madras and Dr. E. Sreedharan, and the experts having come to a particular conclusion, it is very difficult then to say that the Government, in accepting such Expert Committee Report, could be said to have behaved arbitrarily. On this ground alone, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, as also the review judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Respect for Expert Opinion: The Court emphasized that decisions on technical matters should be based on expert advice. The High-Level Committee, comprising qualified engineers, had thoroughly examined the issue and made a recommendation.
• Judicial Restraint: The Court held that the High Court exceeded its powers of judicial review by interfering with the State Government’s decision, which was based on expert opinion. The Court emphasized that judicial review is not an appeal on the merits of the decision.
• Avoiding Unnecessary Delays: The Court noted that the High Court’s direction for a load test would further delay the rehabilitation of the flyover, which was already in a distressed condition.

“Fact:Law”

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle of judicial restraint and the need to respect expert opinions in technical matters. While the factual context of the flyover’s condition was important, the court’s decision was driven by the legal framework governing judicial review.

Logical Reasoning

The Court explicitly stated, “Given the fact that an Expert Committee, which is a High level Committee of five experts was set up to go into the divergent opinions of IIT Madras and Dr. E. Sreedharan, and the experts having come to a particular conclusion, it is very difficult then to say that the Government, in accepting such Expert Committee Report, could be said to have behaved arbitrarily.”

The Court further noted, “Having perused the High Court judgment, what is clear is that the High Court, instead of applying the well-established parameters of judicial review and ascertaining whether the decision of the State Government would violate Article 14, went into the matter itself and stated that it is better to have a “load test conducted to avoid any further controversy in the matter”.”

The Court also observed, “On this ground alone, we set aside the judgment of the High Court, as also the review judgment.”

Key Takeaways

• Courts should generally defer to expert opinions in technical matters.
• Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits of a decision.
• High Courts should not interfere with government decisions based on expert advice unless they are arbitrary or violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The judgment highlights the importance of respecting the recommendations of expert committees in infrastructure projects.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Writ Petitions pending in the High Court be disposed of within six months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the State Government based on the report of an expert committee, by directing a load test, when the government has already decided to demolish and reconstruct a flyover based on expert advice. This case reinforces the principle of judicial restraint and the importance of respecting expert opinions in technical matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Kerala vs. M/S RDS Project Limited overturns the Kerala High Court’s order for a load test on the Palarivattom Flyover. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of respecting expert opinions and judicial restraint, setting a precedent for similar cases involving technical decisions by government bodies. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its powers of judicial review by interfering with the State Government’s decision, which was based on the report of a High-Level Committee of experts. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts in technical matters.