JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. Twenty-nine residents of three villages, claiming to be representing all the inhabitants of three Grama Panchayats, i.e., Belabahali Grama Panchayat, Haridapal Grama Panchayat and Balio Grama Panchayat of Anandapur Sub-Division in the district of Keonjhar, have approached this Court by filing this public interest litigation, with the prayer that the proposal approved for construction of the bridge on river Kusei in Keonjhar and its alignment with the road as suggested by Independent Engineer (IE) vide communication dated 15.06.2016 in respect of “Four laning of Panikoili-Remuli Section of NH-215 from KM 0.000 to KM 163.000 in the State of Odisha under NHDP Phase III as BOT (Toll) on DBFOT Pattern – Construction of major bridge at KM 35.803 at villege Belbahali, Dist. Keonjhar”, be quashed. It is further prayed that the report dated 10.12.2015 submitted by Dr. G.C. Mitra as well as two reports of the Officers (Engineers) of the State Government dated 25.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 with regard to the length of the bridge proposed to be constructed on the river Kusei in Keonjhar district, be accepted. 2. The brief facts of the case are, that the project for construction of four-lane highway has been undertaken by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), and for that purpose a bridge over the said river Kusei is to be constructed. Admittedly, the approach road for the said bridge has already been constructed and the question involved in the present writ petition, which remains to be considered, is with regard to the length of the bridge, as the petitioners have given up their prayer with regard to alignment of road and the site, where the bridge is to be constructed. 3. We have heard Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General for the State-opposite parties; Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party-NHAI as well as Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. J.P. Behera, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.10, who has been assigned the contract for construction of the approach road for the bridge. 4. Four miscellaneous applications have been filed for intervention. Although we have not allowed the said applications, but we have permitted learned counsel appearing for the intervenors to make their submission and, thus, we heard Mr. S.S. Das, Mr. 4. Four miscellaneous applications have been filed for intervention. Although we have not allowed the said applications, but we have permitted learned counsel appearing for the intervenors to make their submission and, thus, we heard Mr. S.S. Das, Mr. U.K. Samal, Dr. A.K. Mohapatra, and Mr. M. Chand, learned counsel appearing for the four sets of Intervenors. 5. The brief submission of Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the length of the bridge in question, as per the two reports dated 25.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 of the Officers (Engineers) of the State Government, should be 600 metres and, if not that, then it should be at least 434 metres, as has been opined by Dr. G.C. Mitra, former Engineer in-Chief of the State Government, vide his report dated 10.12.2015. The contention is that ignoring the reports of the Engineers of the State Government as well as that of Dr. G.C. Mitra, the opposite parties are proceeding to construct the bridge as per the design of NHAi, the length of which is only 360 metres and, if the same is permitted, the three villages in question would be adversely affected in case of flood, as the said villages are situated in the downstream of the river. It has been contended that the NHAI is proceeding with the work of construction of the bridge with the length of only 360 metres, after relying on the opinion given by Professor Dr. D. Sen of the IIT, Khadagpur vide report dated 26.11.2015 and the letter issued by G.M.(T), Odisha dated 15.06.2016, to take up Construction work seeking in principle approval of the COS based on the recommendation of IE on priority, after ignoring the views of the other Engineers of the State Government as well as Dr. G.C. Mitra. In order to substantiate their case, reliance was placed on Chaitanya Kumar v. The State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 825 and Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited v. K.P. Sharma, (2014) 8 SCC 804 . 6. Per contra, Mr. G.C. Mitra. In order to substantiate their case, reliance was placed on Chaitanya Kumar v. The State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 825 and Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited v. K.P. Sharma, (2014) 8 SCC 804 . 6. Per contra, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General has submitted that the National Highway Authority of India is a technical body, duly competent to take a decision with regard to construction of highway roads and bridges, and though the Officers (Engineers) of the State Government may have given their reports, but in fact, the State does not have a direct role in the matter, and the NHAI is the body authorized to take the final decision. His further contention is that the construction of the concerned National Highway, as well as the bridge in question, is in public interest and should be completed as quickly as possible. 7. Mr. Amitav Das, learned counsel appearing for NHAI has submitted, that the report of Dr. D. Sen was sought after the two Engineers had given their reports that the length of the bridge should be 600 metres and also after taking into account the report of Dr. G.C. Mitra, wherein it was opined that length of the bridge should be 434 metres. The report submitted by Dr. D. Sen was, according to Sri Das, after inspecting the site on 14.08.2015 along with Project Director and the Chief General Manager-opposite party no.10 (which fact is being disputed by Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners), and it was only after such visit that the report dated 26.11.2015 was submitted by Dr. D. Sen, categorically stating that the length of the bridge should be 360 metres and the same would not cause floods or affect the interest of the residents of the nearby villages. After the said report had been submitted, it is contended that the report of an Independent Engineer was sought for by the NHAI, and as per such report, the Independent Engineer also opined that the length of the bridge should be 360 metres, as would be clear from communication dated 15.06.2016. As such, according to Sri A. Das, construction as well as the alignment of the road and the bridge, as proposed in the sanctioned designs, is technically justified and appropriate, and does not call for interference. As such, according to Sri A. Das, construction as well as the alignment of the road and the bridge, as proposed in the sanctioned designs, is technically justified and appropriate, and does not call for interference. It has also been submitted that the matter in question is a policy decision of the Government and the NHAI, which normally should not be interfered with by the Court of Law. Reliance has been placed on decisions in Narmada Bachao Andolan, etc. etc. v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751 and Union of India v. Dr. Kushasla Shetty, 2011 AIR SCW 4460. 8. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Contractor, opposite party no.10 has submitted that the approach road of 34 k.m. has already been constructed, and although the decision to construct 360 metres bridge was taken in the year 2013, at which stage some villagers did make a representation which was primarily with regard to realignment, they did not approach the Court till the 34 k.m. road had been constructed and the work with regard to construction of bridge had already commenced. It is thus contended that the writ petition, besides not being in public interest, is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. It is further urged by Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, that his clients had undertaken the work of construction of bridge on the principle of Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) and it is opposite party no.10 which is incurring all the expenses, and would recover the same only after the road and the bridge are constructed, and in case there is any delay in construction of the bridge, opposite party no.10 alone will suffer irreparably. He relied on the judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 582 . 9. Misc. Case No. 13986 of 2016 has been filed by 71 villagers of Hatadihi Panchayat Samiti and Ghatagaon Panchayat Samiti through Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Counsel, who has submitted that the villagers are interested in construction of the bridge at the earliest and it would not be in the public interest to delay the project. 10. Misc. Case No. 13920 of 2016 has been filed by Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Counsel, who has submitted that the villagers are interested in construction of the bridge at the earliest and it would not be in the public interest to delay the project. 10. Misc. Case No. 13920 of 2016 has been filed by Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate on behalf of 51 villagers, 24 of them being of Belbahali Grama Panchayat and more than 25 of them being members of the Grama Panchayat and elected representatives of the areas, including Chairman of the concerned Block. It is contended by Mr. Samal that the petitioners are not representing all the inhabitants of three Grama Panchayats, and this writ petition has not been filed in public interest, but in the interest of the 29 petitioners, who, according to the intervenors, have been interested in realignment of the bridge road and of the National Highway because of their personal interest, as their shops in the market would be adversely affected if such bridge is constructed. It is also contended that this writ petition has not been filed in conformity with the Rules relating to the Public Interest Litigation framed by the Orissa High Court, and on that ground also it is claimed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, as the same is not maintainable in view of the decision in the case of Niranjan Tripathy v. State of Orissa, 2012 (I) ILR CUT 206. He has also relied on the judgment in Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited v. K.P. Sharma, (2014) 8 SCC 804 . 11. Dr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel, who has filed Misc. Case No. 14024 of 2016 seeking intervention of 69 villagers, who are all Sarpanchs as well as members of the Grama Panchayats and elected office bearers, also opposes the writ petition on the ground that any delay in construction of the National Highway, including the bridge construction work, would adversely affect the public interest and it is submitted that such work, which is in the interest of the public, should not be delayed and should be completed as expeditiously as possible. It is further urged that the Court should not interfere with the public policy in exercise of power under judicial review in view of the judgment in Kalipada Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2016 (II) OLR 210 (DB). 12. Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel has filed Misc. It is further urged that the Court should not interfere with the public policy in exercise of power under judicial review in view of the judgment in Kalipada Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2016 (II) OLR 210 (DB). 12. Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel has filed Misc. Case No. 14113 of 2016 on behalf of 38 villagers, who are all residents of the 3 villages in question. Sri Chand has supported the case of NHAI and opposes the prayer made in the writ petition, and has submitted that it would be in the public interest that the bridge in question should be constructed at the earliest, as per the already approved designs. 13. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, two issues arise for consideration, namely: (i) Whether the writ in the nature of public interest litigation is maintainable or not?; and (ii) Whether the Court has got expertise to interfere with the expert opinion conceded and executed by the authority or not? Since both the issues are interrelated, they are being dealt with together. 14. As is clear from the facts of this case, some of the residents of Belbahali, Haridapal and Balio villages have filed this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, challenging the alignment of road and selection of site for construction of the bridge in question on the National Highway No.215, and its length. But, this writ petition has also been opposed by many of the villagers of the same villages, along with some adjacent villages, by way of filing of miscellaneous applications. Therefore, there are rival claims over the construction of the bridge in question. It is noteworthy that in course of hearing of the writ petition the petitioners themselves have abandoned the plea of alignment of the road. Further, in course of hearing, they have also not disputed the construction of the bridge at the site, which has been selected by the National Highway Authority of India. Their dispute remains only with regard to the length of the bridge, as the National Highway Authority of India has decided to construct the bridge of length 360 metres, whereas the petitioners claim that the length of the bridge should be 600 metres, if not at least 434 metres, even though the existing old bridge is of only 206 metres in length. The decision so taken is based on the expert opinion, over which, in exercise of the power of judicial review, this Court has got limited scope to interfere. In any case, since the National Highway is constructed under a project, which is a time bound one, to serve the greater public interest of having better connectivity in the State itself, at the instance of a handful of people interfering at this stage, to our opinion, would be unwarranted. In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra), the apex Court held as follows: “260. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in Public Interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the Court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the judgment of the apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over the policy decision of the Government and interfere with the same at the behest of a handful of people. Apart from the same, nothing has been produced before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that before approaching this Court, by way of filing this Public Interest Litigation, the procedure envisaged in Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 framed by the Orissa High Court has been duly followed. If the Rules framed by this Court in 2010 have not been followed, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Niranjan Tripathy (supra), the writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Chaitanya Kumar (supra) by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, where it has been held that in a Public Interest Litigation those professing to be public spirited citizens cannot be encouraged to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others but, at the same time, the Court cannot close its eyes and persuade itself to uphold publicly mischievous executive actions which have been so exposed. When arbitrariness and perversion are writ large and brought out clearly, the Court cannot shirk its duty and refuse its writ. Advancement of the public interest and avoidance of the public mischief are the paramount considerations. As always, the Court is concerned with the balancing of interests. There is no dispute with regard to proposition laid by the apex Court in the aforementioned judgment. But the case before the apex Court was such where contract had been awarded in gross violation of the Rules which had been challenged in a Public Interest Litigation, but on availability of materials, the Court came to the conclusion that the Public Interest Litigation was maintainable, as on the arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of powers, the contract was awarded and, accordingly, interfered with the same. The facts of the said case are totally different from that of the present one. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment so relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable and is also not applicable to the present context. Rather, the judgments rendered in Narmada Bachao Andolan and Niranjan Tripathy (supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. In any case, without further delving into the question of maintainability in great detail, considering the larger interest of the public, this Court thinks it proper to decide the case on merit. 15. Rather, the judgments rendered in Narmada Bachao Andolan and Niranjan Tripathy (supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. In any case, without further delving into the question of maintainability in great detail, considering the larger interest of the public, this Court thinks it proper to decide the case on merit. 15. On the materials available on record, i.e., the map (site plan), which has been filed along with the writ petition, it is clear that the existing road passes through the village, in a zigzag manner. The already existing bridge on the existing road is of 206 metres length, and a perusal of the site plan would make it clear that the zigzag manner in which the road passes through the villages would not be appropriate for a National Highway and thus, by realignment, a straight road is proposed by the National Highway Authority of India, for which a new bridge over the said river is to be constructed. Since the issue of alignment of the road or the location (site) of the Bridge, as per the approved design, is no longer in question, what we have to consider is only the issue with regard to the length of the bridge. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that because of the length of the bridge being shorter (360 metres instead of 600 metres) hence, the river water, in case of flood, would flow to the villages in question. 16. Admittedly, there was no embankment where the bridge is being constructed. Hence, in case of flood the river water would flow to areas where it was flowing earlier. Merely because the bridge is being constructed at a different site, it would thus not affect the flow of river water in case of flood. The same river water would now flow under a 360 metres bridge, which till now has been flowing under the existing 206 metres bridge. It is not understood as to how the flood water would be affected by the length of the bridge, especially when the length of the proposed bridge is more than the existing bridge. The same river water would now flow under a 360 metres bridge, which till now has been flowing under the existing 206 metres bridge. It is not understood as to how the flood water would be affected by the length of the bridge, especially when the length of the proposed bridge is more than the existing bridge. The river flows in a natural course and in case of flood, the water would flow in the neighbouring areas, which, in our view, would not be affected by the length of the bridge, as the flow of the water would still continue as before, whether the length of the bridge is 206 metres, 360 metres or 600 metres. In any case, the decision with regard to the alignment and width of the road, as well as the length of the bridge was taken up by the technical experts and in terms of the policy as framed by the competent authority, which in the present case is NHAI. Admittedly, the State Government has no direct say in the matter. Such is not even the case of the petitioners that the view of the State Government is final. 17. In the present case, initially a report was submitted by a committee consisting of one Senior Officer of NHAI and two Engineers of the State Government, and in the said report dated 08.01.2015 the issue of length of the bridge was not in question, although the proposed alignment of the road and design the bridge were in issue before the said committee. However, after the submission of the report by the committee of three members, the remaining two members (who are the Engineers of the State Government) submitted two fresh reports dated 25.04.2015 and 29.04.2015, wherein it was mentioned that the length of the bridge, as proposed at 360 metres, would not be adequate and the same should be 600 metres. Thereafter, a report was submitted by Prof. Dr. G.C. Mitra, who opined that the length of the bridge should be 434 metres. Even though the said reports were not binding on NHAI, still since there was inconsistency in the various opinions with regard to the length of the bridge, a further report was called for from IIT, Kharagpur, which on 26.11.2015 submitted a detailed report stating that the length of the bridge as proposed, i.e., 360 metres, is adequate. Even though the said reports were not binding on NHAI, still since there was inconsistency in the various opinions with regard to the length of the bridge, a further report was called for from IIT, Kharagpur, which on 26.11.2015 submitted a detailed report stating that the length of the bridge as proposed, i.e., 360 metres, is adequate. All the reports were sent to an Independent Engineer, who also opined and communicated on 15.06.2016 in favour of the original designs of 360 metres. 18. Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited (supra) paragraph-138 whereof states as follows: “138. However, we hasten to add and do not wish to be misunderstood so as to infer that howsoever gross or abusive may be an administrative action or a decision which is writ large on a particular activity at the instance of the State or any other authority connected with it, the Court should remain a passive, inactive and a silent spectator. What is sought to be emphasised is that there has to be a boundary line or the proverbial “laxman rekha” while examining the correctness of an administrative decision taken by the State or a central authority after due deliberation and diligence which do not reflect arbitrariness or illegality in its decision and execution. If such equilibrium in the matter of governance gets disturbed, development is bound to be slowed down and disturbed specially in an age of economic liberalisation wherein global players are also involved as per policy decision.” The said Paragraph-138 has been followed by paragraph-137, which states as follows: 137. From this, it is clear that although the courts are expected very often to enter into the technical and administrative aspects of the matter, it has its own limitations and in consonance with the theory and principle of separation of powers, reliance at least to some extent to the decisions of the State authorities, specially if it is based on the opinion of the experts reflected from the project report prepared by the technocrats, accepted by the entire hierarchy of the State administration, acknowledged, accepted and approved by one Government after the other, will have to be given due credence and weightage. In spite of this if the court chooses to overrule the correctness of such administrative decision and merits of the view of the entire body including the administrative, technical and financial experts by taking note of hair splitting submissions at the instance of a PIL petitioner without any evidence in support thereof, the PIL petitioners shall have to be put to strict proof and cannot be allowed to function as an extraordinary and extra-judicial ombudsmen questioning the entire exercise undertaken by an extensive body which include administrators, technocrats and financial experts. In our considered view, this might lead to a friction if not collision among the three organs of the State and would affect the principle of governance ingrained in the theory of separation of powers. In fact, this Court in M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., SCC 611 has unequivocally observed that : “41. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields.” 19. Considering the observations made in paragraphs 137 and 138 of Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited (supra), there is no iota of doubt that in exercise of power of judicial review by the Court, it has got limited jurisdiction and, at the same time, the Court must bear in mind that the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism, which are being very often talked of in these days, there has to be a boundary line (Laxman Rekha) while examining the correctness of the administrative decision taken by the State or a central authority after due deliberation and diligence. In the nature of the present case, when the expert opinions are made available, this Court cannot substitute its view sitting as an appellate authority over such decision in exercise of powers of judicial review in the matter. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in paragraph-24 of the judgment in Union of India v. Dr. Kushasla Shetty & Ors., 2011 AIR SCW 4460. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in paragraph-24 of the judgment in Union of India v. Dr. Kushasla Shetty & Ors., 2011 AIR SCW 4460. With regard to exercise of the power of judicial review in respect of the matters under the domain of executive fiat of the State or the policy of the State, this Court in Kalipada Mishra (supra), by referring to various judgments of the Apex Court discussed therein, categorically held that the Court will not interfere with the wisdom in a public policy, unless it offends the equality clause or any of the statutory provision. As it appears from the factual matrix of the case in hand, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court which offends equality clause or enabling statutory provisions governing the field, save and except that it is stated that the site, on which the bridge is going to be constructed, should be of 600 metres or 434 metres in length, instead of 360 metres, which is on the basis of the report given by the expert committee, to which this Court is of the considered view that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over the expert opinion given and executed by the State, here the NHAI. In Delhi Development Authority (supra), the apex Court held that the decision of an expert or autonomous body like NEERI supported by materials, scientific and otherwise, placed by other expert bodies cannot be interfered with by Court without adequate contra material. Applying the said text to the present context, since opposite party no.10 has proceeded with and commenced work on the expert opinion accepted by NHAI, which is the competent authority, the same should not be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In addition to the same, in paragraph-52 of the said judgment relying upon Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra), the apex Court held that PIL should be thrown out at the threshold if it is challenged after the commencement of execution of the project. It was also held that no relief should be given to persons who approach the Court without reasonable explanation under Articles 226 and 32 after inordinate delay. It was also held that no relief should be given to persons who approach the Court without reasonable explanation under Articles 226 and 32 after inordinate delay. Though, the decision was taken to change the alignment in 2013, even the expert opinion had been given on 25.11.2015 and it was accepted by the Independent Engineers of NHAI on 15.06.2016, but due to filing of this Public Interest Litigation, which even does not comply with the requirements of PIL Rules, delay has been caused which leads to colossal wastage of public money, even though opposite party no.10 has entered into BOT with the NHAI, this Court cannot shut its eyes with regard to the circumstantial situations in causing delay in execution of the work in question. Meaning thereby, delay in execution of the project would lead to escalation of cost of materials, labour and other ancillary things which may enhance the cost of the project for which the agreement was executed, and ultimately the burden would shift to the general public at large who would bear the same in shape of taxes. Accordingly issues are answered. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the design, as well as length of the bridge over a river, is a technical issue to be decided by the experts. After considering various reports submitted by different Engineers, a policy decision has been taken by the NHAI with regard to the designs and length of the bridge, which, in our opinion, does not call for interference by this Court, as when two opinions are possible and the policy making body has accepted one opinion, it is not appropriate for Courts to interfere with the decision taken by the competent decision making authority. 21. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.