Gujarat HC Dismisses PIL Against Bridge Construction At Ahmedabad's Panjrapole Crossing Over Claims Of Reduction In Green Cover

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (January 17) dismissed a PIL moved by residents of Ahmedabad pertaining to the construction of a bridge at Panjrapole cross roads over the Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Marg (IIM road), claiming that it will lead to reduction of green cover in the city. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi while pronouncing the order said, "The instant Public Interest Litigation is dismissed". The PIL was moved by 20 residents of the city with respect to the bridge construction covering an area length of 652 metres.

Grounds of Challenge

The court in its 70-page order noted that the petitioners had not challenged the decision making process, but raised the challenge on the ground that there is no requirement for a flyover at the Panjrapol junction, as there is no significant traffic problem at the junction and this was clear from three expert reports relied on by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation(AMC). 

The court noted that the petitioners had raised a challenge on the ground that construction of the flyover will result in extremely narrow 4 meters service lane on both the sides, which will further result in major congestion over the road between the two bridges. 

Court cannot cross Lakshman Rekha and substitute view of decision making body 

The court however said, "All these arguments, made with vehemence, as noted hereinabove, are directed to challenge the decision itself and not the decision making process.The first and foremost guiding principle for the Court would be to draw 'Laxman rekha' between the decision actually taken and the decision-making process. It is not permissible nor possible for the Court to cross the line (Laxman rekha) and substitute its view over the view of the decision making authority, i.e. the AMC, which is based on the report of the technical experts". 

Cannot brush aside Expert Body's report

It said that the petitioner had relied on the 2017 guidelines of IRC (Indian Road Congress) that suggested that as a thumb rule, the construction of flyover should only be for traffic above 10,000 PCU/hour, adding that it was "wholly unacceptable".

It said that the IRC guidelines which has no statutory flavour, cannot brush aside report by Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat (SVNIT) published in 2024. The report gave a clear opinion as to how the performance of an intersection can be assessed in terms of the level of service (LOS) and for optimisation of intersection's traffic signal cycle length, the range of value of vehicular delay at the intersection can be improved with the proposed system. 

SVNIT had said that in 2024, the intersection experiences a delay of 96 second per Passenger Car Unit (PCU) with the proposed system as compared to a delay of 171 seconds per PCU with the existing system. 

The Court then dismissed the claims of the irregularities in SVNIT's report and said, "This opinion drawn by the expert body equipped with highly technical knowledge, cannot be brushed aside by this Court by attaching any illegality or mala fide to the recommendations made by the institution namely SVNIT". It also rejected the petitioners contention that SVNIT report is to be rejected as perverse as it had been obtained in a highly suspicious manner, observing that the report was submitted after conducting a detailed survey when the work was assigned by the AMC to the SVNIT. 

This road is too technical for the court to tread on

It said, “As regards the data of reduction of peak hour volume (PC per hour) as indicated from the reports of 2012, 2020 and 2024, suffice it to record that the said factor alone cannot be taken on the face value to attach any illegality in the decision of the AMC to construct the flyover. Moreover, this road is too technical for the Court to tread on. For the above discussion, all the objections raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners about the decision made by the AMC in the matter of construction of the proposed flyover over the Panjrapol junction are liable to be turned down.”

Every citizen's civic responsibility to maintain green cover

The Court then noted the assurance of AMC to replant 19 of 21 trees and its plan to plant 30 lakh trees to restore forest cover in Ahmedabad. It said that the gradual decrease in the forest cover of Ahmedabad cannot be attributed to the projects of the AMC alone. 

"The Court may only propose to take a judicial note of the fact that it is the duty of the citizenry as well to replenish/re-plant the trees and maintain the green cover while raising private constructions. The civic responsibility of maintaining green cover is the duty and responsibility of each and every citizenry, namely the residents of the city. We understand that in some development projects, there may be requirement of uprooting or replanting the existing trees, however, the said loss can be compensated by alternatives by adopting technology of replanting of existing trees and adding new trees to supplement the green cover, so as to make the development sustainable. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the project should not be allowed to be executed because it will result in the loss of green cover on the road-inquestion, therefore, does not detain us for long," the court said.

On the petitioners grievance of construction award (tender) being granted to Ranjit Construction, the Court dismissed the claims of collusive bidding and noted that Ranjit Construction Co. and Ranjit Buildcon are separate entities. Further, it was pointed out that no evidence was placed to support the allegations against Ranjit Construction Co. that was a registered “AA” Class contractor with a successful track record.

Furthermore, the Court kept it open for the Principal Secretary to conduct an inquiry if any complaints arise against the Contractor – Ranjit Construction Co.

Before parting, the court noted that AMC had issued the work order on March 14, 2024 and the contract agreement was executed on June 24, 2024 that provided a timeline of 26 months for the completion of the project. It said that due to the pendency of the PIL and time taken by corporation to submit fresh reports on flyover's feasibility, the  construction had been substantially delayed adding that any further delay would result in cost escalation, having an adverse effect on the public exchequer going against public interest. It thus dismissed the PIL. 

The PIL raised the grievance regarding the award issued to the Ranjit Construction Company for the construction of the Panajarapole over-bridge highlighting the poor track record involving irregularities in construction of Sabarmati Riverfront Project, widening projects in Surat that lead to a collapse at the time of construction.

Case Title: Dharini Shah & Ors. vs State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 10

Case No: R/WPPIL/43/2024

Counsel of the Petitioner: Senior advocate Mihir Thakore with advocate Salil Thakore

Counsel of the State: Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, Government Pleader Gursharan H. Virk with Additional Government Pleaders Vinay Bairagra and Hetal Patel

Counsel for Respondent 3: Advocate Harnish V Darji

Click Here To Read/Download Order