JUDGMENT Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J. 1. Writ Appeal has been preferred against interim order, dated 15th March, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition itself by which the interim relief prayed for in W.P.M.P. No. 665 of 2012 by the writ petitioners, was granted and thereby execution of Corridor-III of the Hyderabad Metro Rail Project in the segment of Greenlands - Shilparamam had been stayed. 2. While hearing the above appeal at the initial stage it was decided that the writ petition should be withdrawn from the roster of the Hon'ble Single Judge for rendering decision by the Division Bench along with the above appeal. Hence, this Court decided that instead of hearing the appeal in piecemeal, the writ petition itself should be heard out. Obviously, the interim order will be governed by the final decision in the writ petition. 3. Shorn of unnecessary, irrelevant and confusing details in the writ petition, short fact is stated hereunder: "The 1st petitioner is an association of number of members and it is formed with primary motive and object to protect the interests of the traders and shop owners of the areas of Greenlands, Ameerpet, Sri Krishna Nagar, Madhura Nagar and Yousufguda, and the rest of the petitioners are claiming to be the merchants and owners of the properties in those areas. Hyderabad Metro Rail Project was conceived by the then State of Andhra Pradesh to ease the congestion on the roads of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and also to provide an alternative transit system for the commuters and, as such, the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'HMDA Act, 2008') was enacted. The project comprises three routes of a length of 71.6 kms comprising three lines which are commonly known as three Corridors and they are as follows: Line-I : From Miyapur to L.B. Nagar, covering a distance of 29.87 km; Line-II : From Jubilee Bus Station to Falakhnuma, covering a distance of 14.78 km; and Line-III : From Nagole to Shilparamam, covering a distance of 14.78 km." 4. The entire project is stated to be an elevated corridor along the central meridian of roads with two parallel tracks of rails and 66 stations. This is being executed by mode of Public Private Partnership. Accordingly, the private company, viz., Larsen & Tubro, has been awarded the contract. The entire project is stated to be an elevated corridor along the central meridian of roads with two parallel tracks of rails and 66 stations. This is being executed by mode of Public Private Partnership. Accordingly, the private company, viz., Larsen & Tubro, has been awarded the contract. The petitioners are aggrieved by the change in alignment of Line-III for laying the rail in the stretch of Greenlands to Shilparamam. They allege that all the details of alignment in regard to the proposed project was kept secret and no transparent measures, inviting public debate, was initiated by the respondents 1 & 2. This change has resulted in uprooting established families, business locations en-route. The petitioners came to know the details about the change only when land acquisition proceedings were initiated in July, 2011. There was no technical study undertaken preceding the change of alignment in regard to Line-III of the project for the stretch of Greenlands - Shilparamam. The respondents refused to disclose details with regard to decision making process. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the project was submitted by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) in 2003 considering the viability of five alternatives. The report of 2003 was only in regard to Corridors I & II and did not include Corridor-III which is the subject-matter of the writ petition. The DPR of 2003 at page (vii) mention that the alignment for the stretch of Secunderabad - Hitech City line is not feasible as a fully elevated corridor from engineering point of view due to steep gradients, large number of ups and downs along the alignment and existence of four flyovers en-route. In view of such specific observations, fourth alternative was finalized as per the recommendation which had suggested only two Corridors - Line I from Miyapur to Chaitanyapuri and Line II from Secunderabad to Falakhnuma. However, there appears to be a separate DPR for Line-III prepared in 2006 which ignores impossibility of technical viability of Corridor-III, and proceeds to recommend the impugned alignment without even considering the viability of the alternative arrangement which is Alignment No. I. In fact, the DPR of Corridor-III submitted in 2006 substantiates the unviability of the impugned alignment because of the deep curvatures and the engineering difficulties to be encountered. 5. The entire exercise is preceded by non-application of mind into the alternative available routes for Corridor-III for the segment Greenlands to Shilparamam. 5. The entire exercise is preceded by non-application of mind into the alternative available routes for Corridor-III for the segment Greenlands to Shilparamam. The impugned alignment involves acquisition of lands and demolition of a whole market at Sri Krishna Nagar. The study on potential ridership is completely absent and does not present a comparative study. The entire decision making process of the 1st respondent is vitiated with non-application of mind, irrationality of reasoning and arbitrariness and is thus unsustainable, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petitioners prayed for the relief of a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in changing the alignment of Corridor-III of Hyderabad Metro Rail Project (HMRP) concerning Nagole - Shilparamam, as regards the segment of Greenlands - Shiparamam as indicated in the enclosed annexures is arbitrary, illegal and offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India by way of issue of a writ, order or direction, and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to revert to the original alignment as detailed in the writ petition. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the first & second respondents. They say, in substance, as follows:-- "The technical feasibility reports of the alignments of all the three Hyderabad Metro Rail Corridors were prepared by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) which has vast experience and expertise in preparation of Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for almost all the Metro Rail Projects in India. While it finalized the alignment and prepared the DPRs for Corridor-I and Corridor-II in June, 2003 it did so for Corridor-III in May, 2006 after conducting detailed field study and transport demands forecasting. DPRs were prepared by a large team of technical experts of DMRC, who have the required domain knowledge and expertise in different disciplines i.e., Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Telecommunications, Signalling, Rolling Stock, Train Operations, Finance, etc. The alignment and DPRs have been finalized by DMRC in a purely professional and impartial manner based on their experience in Delhi and other cities. The DPR for Corridor-III indicates that the alignment runs along Sardar Patel Road and Begumpet road upto Greenlands junction and thereafter, the alignment turns towards Lal Bungalow road, Ameerpet junction, Yousufguda, Madhura Nagar and Jubilee Hills Check-post. The DPR for Corridor-III indicates that the alignment runs along Sardar Patel Road and Begumpet road upto Greenlands junction and thereafter, the alignment turns towards Lal Bungalow road, Ameerpet junction, Yousufguda, Madhura Nagar and Jubilee Hills Check-post. This alignment was prepared taking into consideration related documents like DPRs, EIA reports, Geotechnical Investigation Reports, Traffic Data Reports, Traffic Surveys and Analysis Reports, etc., and the same were approved by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is specifically stated that no change was made to the alignment prepared by DMRC and approved by the Government commencing from Greenlands to Shilparamam by the respondents. Right from 2005 onwards, the project authorities held a number of discussions and consultations with various stakeholder groups and public representatives, shared all the relevant information with the public through several media statements and by conducting workshops, etc. The Government spent over eight years from June, 2003 when the DPRs for the first two corridors were prepared by DMRC in bringing the project to the present stage. In-depth discussions and consultations on the Hyderabad Metro Rail Project were held with the city Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislative Assembly, Corporators and the general public in a workshop first organised in Hari Hara Kala Bhavan in October, 2005. The elected representatives were taken to Delhi and shown the DMRC project and were explained the salient features of Hyderabad Metro Rail Project in May, 2006. Even though, as per Notification of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF, GoI) No. 1533, dated 14.09.2006, no public consultation is required for Metro Rail (MRTS) project, several rounds of presentations, discussions and wide consultations were held with different groups of stakeholders and elected representatives on several occasions. Though the DPRs and other technical reports are intellectual property for which Government spent a huge amount and the data contained therein has the potential for misuse/illegal commercial exploitation by people with vested interests, the respondents have been permitting anybody who comes to HMR office to peruse the documents within the office premises. Further, copies of DPRs and other technical and legal documents have been sent to important Universities and academic institutions in the city like JNTU, OU, BITS Pilani Hyderabad campus, IIT Hyderabad, NALSAR, ASCI, etc. so that they can be kept as reference material for students of relevant disciplines and others. Further, copies of DPRs and other technical and legal documents have been sent to important Universities and academic institutions in the city like JNTU, OU, BITS Pilani Hyderabad campus, IIT Hyderabad, NALSAR, ASCI, etc. so that they can be kept as reference material for students of relevant disciplines and others. Hence, the allegations about secrecy and lack of public debate about the project are malicious, and are being deliberately made. The selection of routes and alignment of all the three metro rail corridors was done by DMRC with required care and after conducting detailed techno-economic surveys, traffic studies, etc., and these are elaborately discussed in the DPRs. The Traffic OD (Origin & Destination) patterns, location of work centres and CBDs (Central Business Districts), Road Row (Right of Way) etc., play an important role in the selection of Metro Rail routes and finalization of alignment. A look at the densities from Corridor-III alignment map reveals the justification and reasons for taking Corridor-III alignment over Greenlands, Ameerpet junction, Yousufguda, Madhura Nagar and Krishna Nagar to Jubilee Hills Check-post which is primarily dense traffic corridor apart from non-feasibility of taking it along Panjagutta flyover. The issues of traffic densities, traffic catchment areas, potential station landings, curvatures, gradients and other technical feasibility matters, etc., were carefully considered by DMRC before finalizing the alignment and preparation of DPRs. Further, a lot more detailed engineering has been gone into for planning alignments by a host of experts, as the same is a technical subject intrinsically interlinked with safety of train operations, passengers and the road users below. The concerned wings of Ministry of Railways like the Technical Directorates of the Railway Board and the RDSO (Research, Designs & Standards Organization) have to mandatorily clear and approve Rail parameters design specifications and schedule of dimensions. The Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS) will not issue the mandatory safety certificate for running Metro Trains unless Rail Alignment, track, structure, track geometry, track tolerances, curves, gradients, kinematic profile and various other design criteria are strictly as per the prescribed technical specifications and safety standards. Hence, fixation of alignment is a complex exercise done by professional engineers, with high technical expertise, specialization and field experience in the respective engineering disciplines and it is not practical to throw it open for public consultation and debate. Hence, fixation of alignment is a complex exercise done by professional engineers, with high technical expertise, specialization and field experience in the respective engineering disciplines and it is not practical to throw it open for public consultation and debate. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that acquisition of land and other properties is being done as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Hyderabad Metro Rail Project is being executed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Tramways (Construction, Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2008'). The subject of safety, pollution particularly to hospitals and educational institutions and damage to heritage buildings is adequately addressed. Metro Rail System controls and brings down the ever-increasing vehicular emissions like Carbon Monoxide (CO); Carbon Dioxide (CO2); and Nitrous Oxide (N2O); Total Suspended Particulate Material (TSPM); Respirable Suspended Particulate Material (RSPM) and noise pollution levels. Hyderabad Metro Rail Project is not affecting any of the monuments, archaeological structures or heritage structures. A safe distance of 50 to 300 feet is being generally maintained through careful design solutions from nine heritage structures near which the sleek elevated metro guide way traverses. It is contended in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition which is not filed in public interest. Insofar as acquisition of land and properties is concerned, the remedy of final objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is available to the individual persons affected thereby." 8. Reply affidavit is filed and above explanation to justify the alignment in question has not been controverted with material. 9. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, appearing for the petitioners, placing the facts in the writ petition, submits that there was no decision making conforming to the norms of probity and transparency in the working of the 1st respondent in the writ petition. The limited participation in the debate does not answer the public law requirement of consultation and debate and participation of stakeholders and the affected parties. Article 14 of the Constitution of India requires, in order to prevent arbitrariness in the decision making process, at the stage of conceptualisation of the project, debate and discussions being held. The limited participation in the debate does not answer the public law requirement of consultation and debate and participation of stakeholders and the affected parties. Article 14 of the Constitution of India requires, in order to prevent arbitrariness in the decision making process, at the stage of conceptualisation of the project, debate and discussions being held. The respondents, in fact, in the counter-affidavit admitted that there has been non-compliance of the mandate of Section 5 of the Act, 2008, as such the decision taken so is invalid. So far as the alignment of Metro Rail Project from the stretch of Greenlands to Shilparamam is concerned, compliance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 2008 and the procedure thereon would apply not only to a local authority but with equal force to any person including the 1st respondent herein. 10. The non obstante clause in Section 5 of Act, 2008 does not obviate compliance with Section 4. The 1st respondent is bound by the norms professed by it, being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The project is a Metro Rail Project and not a tramway, and therefore, the 1st respondent is obligated to comply with the provisions of the Delhi Metro Railway (Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2002. The field is covered by the legislation under Entry-22 of List-I read with Article 366 (20) whereby a tramway is not a railway, and therefore could not have been governed by Entry-13 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule to which the Act, 2008 is referable. Entry-13 of List-II deals with subjects legislatable to such areas subject to provisions of Entry-22 of List-I. The statement with regard to compliance with the provisions of HMDA Act, 2008, for the purpose of preparation and notification of a master plan which is stated to incorporate the alignment of Metro Rail has no application for adjudication of the issue. The compliance with the provisions of the HMDA Act, 2008 is not a substitute for the requirement under Act, 2008. Thus, this is unrelated to the decision making of HMRL in regard to alignments. 11. It is clear that the detailed project report of 2003 did not favour the project of Metro rail in Corridor-III. DPR of 2006 suggested that the Metro Rail Project be taken as an underground project to give more safety to the project and the passengers. Thus, this is unrelated to the decision making of HMRL in regard to alignments. 11. It is clear that the detailed project report of 2003 did not favour the project of Metro rail in Corridor-III. DPR of 2006 suggested that the Metro Rail Project be taken as an underground project to give more safety to the project and the passengers. There is no material on record to indicate there has been application of mind by the HMRL or any expert body in support of the departure from the stated recommendations, and in view of the fact that none of these matters was placed in public domain seeking objections or a debate, substantiates the plea of the petitioners that that the decision making of respondent No. 1, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. The material on record discloses that the 1st respondent had been arbitrarily fixing the alignments and changing the alignments contrary to the professed norms, causing affectation of life, living and property of individuals, including the petitioners. 13. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in case of Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishum Narain Inter College AIR 1987 SC 1242 and that of this Court in case of S.B. Kirloskar v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority 2010 (6) ALD 598 (DB). 14. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, placing the factual aspects from the counter-affidavit, submits that the respondents are executing the Metro Rail Project in Corridors I, II & III, including the impugned stretch from Greenlands to Shilparamam, in accordance with the approved and sanctioned alignment as notified in the revised Master Plan approved vide G.O.Ms. No. 363, M.A., dated 21.08.2010. The Master Plan was prepared, and sanctioned by the 2nd respondent State after following due procedure as provided under Sections 13 & 14 of the HMDA Act, 2008. Therefore, the Master Plan and the alignment contained therein are having statutory basis. Neither the writ petitioners nor any person challenged the sanctioned Master Plan containing metro alignments in 2010. The sanctioned Master Plan was brought to the notice of the writ petitioners by way of an affidavit dated 16.8.2012 in W.A. No. 414 of 2012. Even then, the petitioners did not choose to challenge the same till today. Neither the writ petitioners nor any person challenged the sanctioned Master Plan containing metro alignments in 2010. The sanctioned Master Plan was brought to the notice of the writ petitioners by way of an affidavit dated 16.8.2012 in W.A. No. 414 of 2012. Even then, the petitioners did not choose to challenge the same till today. Hence, the sanctioned Master Plan and alignment indicated therein had attained finality. The Master Plan, being a public document, the members of the public are having constructive notice. It is without any proof and lacks factual foundation. 15. He contends that Sections 3 & 4 of Act, 2008 provides the procedure for making an application by a local body or other authority for construction and maintenance of Tramway System in the Municipal areas and passing order authorizing it to do so. He submits that Section 5 of the Act, 2008 provides power to the State Government to enter into agreement with any person for development, construction, management, operation and maintenance of Tramway System notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, 2008. The issue of prior notice about the alignment is not provided under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Act, 2008. 16. In the instant case, the State Government has entered into an agreement with M/s. Larsen & Toubro in terms of Section 5 of the Act, 2008 for execution of Hyderabad Metro Rail Project. In view of the non-obstante clause in Section 5, Sections 3 & 4have no application to this project. The petitioners did not complain in the writ petition about non-compliance with Sections 3 &4 of Act, 2008. He submits that the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court cannot question, in the absence of counter expertise, viability and feasibility of the alignment report. In judicial review, the Court can set aside or quash the impugned action of authorities if its alignment of construction of the project is ex facie in contravention of mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. To support this, he seeks to place reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289 and in case of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty (2011) 12 SCC 69 . 17. To support this, he seeks to place reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289 and in case of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty (2011) 12 SCC 69 . 17. The impugned metro alignment in Corridor III is in accordance with the approved sanctioned master plan as required under Sections 13, 14, sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 18 and subsection (1) of Section 19 of HMDA Act, 2008. 18. The writ petitioners did not allege that the decision of fixing alignment is in breach of the provision of any law or tainted with mala fides. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the pleadings filed in this matter by the respective parties. 20. It appears that the grievance of the writ petitioners is directed against alleged change in part alignment of Corridor-III of HMRP stretching from Greenlands to Shilparamam. The ground of challenge is that it was finalized and approved by the respondents 1 & 2, without having regard to the efficacy of the alternative route initially approved, tentatively decided for the said segment. It is alleged that such change is arbitrary, illegal and also violative of the norms of rail transport and also the norms followed by the 1st respondent in this regard. The decision for change of alignment was taken secretly and no transparent measure of public debate was resorted to. 21. It is clear from the writ petition that there is no challenge to the legality and validity of the project as a whole, even to alignment of Third Corridor, except for the portion above. However taking inspiration from the observations of the Hon'ble Single Judge on 27th February, 2012, extraneous issues have been raised in arguments, as noted by us hereinabove. Hon'ble Single Judge raised following questions suo motu:-- "(a) Whether the project has been planned and launched in accordance with the statutory provisions? However taking inspiration from the observations of the Hon'ble Single Judge on 27th February, 2012, extraneous issues have been raised in arguments, as noted by us hereinabove. Hon'ble Single Judge raised following questions suo motu:-- "(a) Whether the project has been planned and launched in accordance with the statutory provisions? (b) Whether perfect mechanism has been evolved to address the problem of effected public, particularly the persons, those are going to be permanently displaced; (c) Whether the change of the route as alleged by the petitioners was on the basis of any public hearing; and (d) Whether any public hearing was conducted to address the issue of safety, pollution, particularly to hospitals and educational institutions, and damage to heritage buildings." 22. First, we shall deal with the issues confined to the writ petition on fact, and the grounds in relation thereto. 23. In the counter affidavit of both the respondents 1 & 2, it has been specifically pleaded that no change was made in any portion of the alignment of the third Corridor prepared by the DMRC and approved by the Government commencing from Greenlands - Shilparamam by the respondents. It is explained in the counter affidavit in paragraph-5 thereof that technical feasibility reports of the alignments of all the three Hyderabad Metro Rail Corridors were prepared by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) which has vast experience and expertise in preparation of Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for almost all the Metro Rail Projects in India. While it finalized the alignment and prepared the DPRs for Corridor-I and Corridor-II in June, 2003, it did so for Corridor-III in May, 2006 after conducting detailed field study and transport demands forecasting. The aforesaid statement has not been denied, so to say, in the reply affidavit. 24. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that there has been change in the alignment of Corridor-III of Hyderabad Metro Rail Project between Greenlands and Shilparamam. While preparing this alignment for the stretch in question detailed study and survey were made taking into consideration the topography, habitation, need of commuters and the traffic flow. This alignment of Corridor-III was finalized by DMRC basing on all the related documents like DPRs, EIA reports, Geotechnical Investigation Reports, Traffic Data Reports, Traffic Surveys and Analysis Reports, etc., and then it was approved by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh. This alignment of Corridor-III was finalized by DMRC basing on all the related documents like DPRs, EIA reports, Geotechnical Investigation Reports, Traffic Data Reports, Traffic Surveys and Analysis Reports, etc., and then it was approved by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is also noticed in the counter-affidavit that the decision of choosing this alignment was taken examining the feasibility of the same, done by railway engineers with domain knowledge of rail geometrics, track structure, limitation of different types of curves and gradients, structural solutions, etc. From the above, it is unquestionably clear that it was not done overnight. We find, factually, preparation of this project report was started right from 2005 onwards, and the authorities concerned held a number of discussions and consultations with various stakeholder groups and public representatives, shared all the relevant information with the public through several media statements and by conducting workshops, etc. In-depth discussions and consultations on the HMRP were held with the city Members of Parliament, Legislative Assembly, Corporators and the general public in a workshop first organised in Hari Hara Kala Bhavan in October, 2005. 25. Therefore, the complaint of the writ petitioners that there has been no public debate and also no adherence to transparency, is absolutely unfounded. We don't think that transparency measure is to be taken in the way and manner the writ petitioners want. We are of the view that all decisions of the Government are not required to be taken with transparency and thrown to public debate unless, of course, law expressly requires so particularly. If it were so, then, what is the utility of forming Government by the people democratically? According to us, such a suggestion leads to inevitable anarchy. No law has been shown to hold that conceptualization, preparation and finalization of the alignment of MRP must be preceded by public debate, publicity. 26. On the contrary, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority (HMDA) on 17.12.2009 prepared the master plan under Section 11 of the HMDA Act, 2008, therein the Metro Rail alignment of Corridors-I, II & III, including the questioned stretch of alignment was indicated and the said Master plan was notified by inviting written objections from the general public as required under Section 13 of the HMDA Act, 2008. On 21.8.2010, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the 2nd respondent sanctioned the master plan vide G.O.Ms. No. 363 dated 21.8.2010, as required under Section 14 of the HMDA Act, 2008. We find that clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of HMDA Act, 2008 empowers the Authority to prepare such development plan having regard to the proposal and policies for traffic and transportation and promoting mass transportation facilities, we also find that no transport project can be undertaken in Hyderabad Metropolitan Area without approval and permission of HMDA as per Sections 18 & 19 of HMDA Act, 2008. He contends and in our view correctly so, that the said notified sanctioned alignment under Sections 13 & 14 of HMDA Act in the Master plan was not challenged by the petitioners even after disclosure of the same in the counter-affidavit on 16th August, 2012. Thus, the alignment notified in the master plan has attained finality in the year 2010 itself. The master plan is not an ordinary document and it has statutory force as it is prepared under the statutory provision. 27. We are of the view that the allegations of non-adherence to alleged transparency, wide publicity of the master plan is absolutely misplaced in view of the above discussion. It is clear from the counter-affidavit that the expert body has prepared the said DPR and finalized it, and thereafter the Government has accepted it as a policy decision, and unless there is violation of legal provision it is not amenable to judicial scrutiny. 28. In this connection, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Rly. Officers Assn. v. Union of India (supra) is very apposite. In that case, decision of the Railway Board and Railway Ministry for increasing number of railway zones was brought before the Court for judicial review. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering large number of earlier decisions of the same Court, has laid down to what extent judicial review in a matter of this nature, namely a policy decision in a specialised and expertised field, is entertainable. In that case it was argued with authenticated documents that increase in the number of railway zones was uneconomic, unproductive in backward areas, and such argument was overruled by the Supreme Court. In that case it was argued with authenticated documents that increase in the number of railway zones was uneconomic, unproductive in backward areas, and such argument was overruled by the Supreme Court. In paragraph-12 of the report, the law was laid down that where policy is evolved by the Government, judicial review thereof is limited. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise, the Court without taking any decision would leave the matter for decision to those who are qualified to address the issues, unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or is arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power. 29. In this case, even the writ petitioners have admitted that group of experts prepared the project report and three corridors were identified for construction of the transport system. When the expert people found this stretch of alignment questioned in the writ petition, as viable and feasible in all respects, the Court cannot bring its own expertise at the instance of the petitioners. We do not see any mala fide or lack of probity in this matter in the final decision on this alignment. 30. In a fairly recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty (supra), it was ruled as a statement of law as to where a policy decision of construction works should be scrutinized by the Court. In that case, the change of alignment of National Highways was questioned on the ground that it was done at the behest of vested interests. The Supreme Court again reiterated the principle laid down in its previous decisions. In paragraph-25 of the said report, it is explained as follows: "25. In that case, the change of alignment of National Highways was questioned on the ground that it was done at the behest of vested interests. The Supreme Court again reiterated the principle laid down in its previous decisions. In paragraph-25 of the said report, it is explained as follows: "25. The plea of the respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of the national highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the national highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the appellants are tainted by mala fides." Again, in paragraph-28 of the said report, the Supreme Court observed, amongst others, as follows: "28. ... ... ... ... The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. ... ... ...." 31. In the case on hand, the project report mentioning the alignment and the approval thereof was prepared by an expert body and no attempt was made to counter the same by an equal, if not better, expert finding its flaw or impossibility of project. The petitioners have sought to place reliance on a book written by a person, who is not an expert in this field. Some comments and observations made in the book written by one private individual, not being an expert in this field, is not a document to be looked into by the Court to reject the project report with the alignment in question, prepared by the expert body. 32. Some comments and observations made in the book written by one private individual, not being an expert in this field, is not a document to be looked into by the Court to reject the project report with the alignment in question, prepared by the expert body. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioners seek to place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court to challenge the decision of approval of the alignment of the stretch in question in case of S.B. Kirloskar v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (supra) that was a case of challenge to the land acquisition and successive notifications under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were issued, consequential declaration under Section 6 of this Act and also award. The Court found that the steps taken in the land acquisition in that case was not in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. In this case, in the pleading there is no allegation of illegality of the project. The above judgment is of no assistance to this case. 33. As we have already indicated that in the writ petition there is no challenge as to the legality and validity of the project, but being inspired by the learned Single Judge's queries, the learned counsel at the argument stage, taking note of the explanation given in the counter affidavit, has argued legal points and we feel the same should be dealt with. 34. The contention that this Metro Rail Project is unconstitutional in the sense that the field is covered by legislation under Entry-22 of List-I read with Article 366 (20) is unacceptable to us. This Metro rail project admittedly has been done under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Tramways (Construction, Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2008. From the statute and in particular the object thereof, it appears to us that it is an Act to provide for Development Construction, Management, Operation and Maintenance of Mass Rapid Transit system and, to regulate the Working Commercial Exploitation of Real Estate forming part of such mass rapid transit system in Municipal Areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 35. Rejecting the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, we hold that this enactment has been made within the competence of the State Legislature, and it will appear from List-II of Seventh schedule in Entry-13 which reads as follows: "13. 35. Rejecting the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, we hold that this enactment has been made within the competence of the State Legislature, and it will appear from List-II of Seventh schedule in Entry-13 which reads as follows: "13. Communications, that is to say, roads, bridges, ferries, and other means of communication not specified in List I; municipal tramways, ropeways; inland waterways and traffic thereon subject to the provisions of List I and List III with regard to such waterways; vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles." 36. As we have said, it is a mode of communication within the municipal area and this is not a railway nor even tramway in the strict sense. The word "communication" as above denotes a wide and inclusive term. Mere use of the nomenclature of "metro rail" does not invalidate the said enactment of 2008. Moreover, Article 366 (20) of the Constitution of India makes it clear as to the competence of the State Legislature. Clause (20) of Article 366 defines as follows: "Art. 366 (20) "railway" does not include- (a) a tramway wholly within a municipal area, or (b) any other line of communication wholly situate in one State and declared by Parliament by law not to be a railway;" 37. Therefore, the State Legislature is competent as clarified by Article 366 to legislate on other line of communication not being a railway. Thus, the contention of legislative incompetence of the State is without basis. 38. Next, it is contended that the entire project, though not specifically pleaded in the writ petition, is illegal and not authorised by the Act, 2008. Such a contention deserves to be rejected, as it appears that under the provision of Section 5 of Act, 2008, Government has entered into an agreement for laying this metro rail. It will appear from Section 5 that it has got overriding effect over other provisions of Sections 3 & 4. According to us, when steps have taken under the provisions of Section 5, the compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act can be dispensed with, as Government itself is the partner of the project works, whereas in case of Sections 3 & 4 the State Government has no scope nor occasion to involve itself in the works. 39. 39. We, appropriately, therefore, set out Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Tramways (Construction, Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2008. "3. Application for operating system:-- (1) A local authority in respect of a Municipal area within its jurisdiction or any other authority, agency or body of the State Government or a Government company may make an application for the development, construction, management, operation and maintenance of a tramway system in a municipal area. (2) A local authority or any other authority agency or body of the State Government or a Government company, as the case may be, shall not make an application or an Order, unless the making of such application has been approved in the manner prescribed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the State Government may on its own motion or on an application or otherwise, by an order in writing, require a local authority or any other authority, a Government company or an agency or body of the State Government to make an application for development, construction, management, operation and maintenance of a tramway system in a municipal area. 4. Procedure for making order on application:-- (1) On receiving an application under Section 3, if the State Government is satisfied as to the propriety and necessity of proceeding thereon, publish a notice in such manner and containing such information as may be prescribed, together with the draft of a proposed order authorising the development, construction, management, operation and maintenance of the tramway system in a municipal area. (2) A notice under sub-section (1) above shall state that any objections or suggestions which any person may desire to make with respect to the proposed order, if submitted to the Government on or before the date to be specified in such notice, will be considered. (3) If after considering objections or suggestions, if any, which may have been made with respect to the draft order on or before the date specified in the notice published pursuant to sub-section (1), the State Government is of the opinion that the order should be made, with or without addition or modification or subject or not to any restriction or condition, it may make an order accordingly. (4) Every order authorizing the development, construction, management, operation and maintenance of a tramway system shall be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and such publication shall be conclusive proof that the order has been made as required by this section. 5. Power of the State Government to enter into agreement for development, construction, management, operation and maintenance of tramway system:-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, (1) the State Government may enter into an agreement or other arrangement (whether by way of partnership, joint venture or in any other manner) in writing, with any person selected through open competitive bidding or otherwise for grant of concession to develop, construct, manage, operate and maintain a tramway system for any Municipal area on build, own, operate and transfer or any other basis and on such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon or prescribed by the State Government; (2) the tramway operator appointed pursuant to an agreement referred to in sub-section (1) is entitled to collect and retain fare, subject to the provisions of the agreement for services or benefits rendered by him, at such rate as the State Government may, by notification, in the official Gazette, specify subject, however, to the rules that may be made in this behalf." 40. On a reading of three sections, it would emerge that primarily, the Government can authorise any local authority or any other authority, agency or body of the State Government or Government Company to develop, construct, manage, operate and maintain a tramway system. 'Local authority' has been defined in Section 2 (8) which mentions municipal Corporation, municipal council, or other authority constituted or continued under any law for the time being in force for a municipal area and the words mentioned in Section 3 "any other authority" in our considered view is ejusdem generis to the local authority. In our view, procedure provided in Section 4 is to be when order is required to be passed authorizing the person or body to develop, construct, manage, operate, maintain tramway system, not for alignment of project. So, it operates in a different field altogether. In our view, procedure provided in Section 4 is to be when order is required to be passed authorizing the person or body to develop, construct, manage, operate, maintain tramway system, not for alignment of project. So, it operates in a different field altogether. Section 5 enables the Government to enter into an agreement or other arrangement with a person of any description instead of passing any order for authorization as mentioned in Sections 3 & 4 of Act 2008, and in our view it provides for wide discretion to the Government and in that case the Government is not required to follow the procedure as mentioned in Section 4which is applicable only in case of the applicant mentioned under Section 3 of the Act, 2008. We, therefore, reject the contention of the learned Senior counsel as to the requirement of compliance with Section 4 of the Act, 2008, since it is done under Section 5. 41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the Writ Petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. In view of this order, no separate order need be passed in the Writ Appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.