ORDER : 1. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued a notification in exercise of power conferred by Sub Section 1 of Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short the Act) on 04.04.2021, whereby the ministry declared its intention to acquire land of the petitioners for up-gradation and four lanning of Paonta Sahib Ballupur (Dehradun) Section from Km. 104.00 to Km 149.00 and bye pass to Paonta Sahib Km 97.00 to Km 104.00 of National Highway No. 72 for re-alignments and link roads for building (widening/two-lane with paved shoulder/four lanning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of NH 72 in the stretch of land from Km 97.00 to Km 104.00 (Paonta Sahib bye pass). 2. The petitioners got information that the respondents have issued a notification for declaring their intention to acquire their land. The petitioners vide an application to the Minister for Road Transport and Highways and to the Chairman of NHAI prayed for restraining the respondents from the construction of bye pass road from their land and requested to carry out the construction of bye pass road from the previous survey i.e. from Bata Bridge Flyover or from Ranbaxy Chowk. The petitioners filed objections under Sub Section 1 Section 3 (c) before respondent no. 4 qua re-alignment of bye pass road to Paonta Sahib. 3. The objections preferred by the petitioners were returned on the ground that the same have been filed at a belated stage. The petitioners being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondents preferred CWP No. 3646 of 2021 which was allowed by this Court thereby directing the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioners on merit. The objections were again filed on 19.07.2021 before the competent authority of land acquisition-cum-SDO (C) and the same were dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2021. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the competent authority of land acquisition-cum-SDO, the petitioners have filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs: (a) to set-aside order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-X) passed by the Competent Authority under Land Acquisition-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the competent authority of land acquisition-cum-SDO, the petitioners have filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs: (a) to set-aside order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-X) passed by the Competent Authority under Land Acquisition-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. (b) to direct the respondents to realign the intersection of the proposed bye-pass to Paonta Sahib Km 97.000 to 104.000 of National Highway No. 72 for re-alignments and link roads for building (widening/two-lane with paved shoulder/four lanning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of NH 72 in the stretch of land from Km 97.000 to Km 104.000 (Paonta Sahib By-pass) in District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. (c) to direct the respondent No. 5 to shift its petrol pump 100 meter beyond the proposed intersection. 5. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply wherein it is averred that the NHAI has undertaken the up-gradation work of Paonta Sahib to Ballupur (Dehradun) (NH-72) from Km 97.000 to 104.000. The alignment for the Paonta Sahib Bye pass was selected after the study of many alternate alignments including elevated underground and at grade level by the DOR consultants M/s Yogma Engineering Co. Ltd. The said alignment of the bye pass has been finalized after considering all the site constraints and Indian Road Congress (IRC) and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H) guidelines. The consultant has planned the final alignment of the bye pass to reduce traffic congestion in Paonta Sahib town which subsequently leads to reduction in accidents and the same was concurred by the Authority as per the norms. 6. It is further averred that minimum number of structures are under acquisition/demolition in the final planned alignment. The consultant initially submitted the Final Alignment Option Study Report in June 2020. Further, the consultant vide letters dated 02.08.2021 and 20.09.2021 discussed, in detail, the alignment alternative in response to alternate alignments proposed by the petitioners. 7. It is averred that the land in question has been notified under Section 3A and the said notification was published in the gazette of India under the NH Act, 1956 on 26.03.20212. The scope of work under Ballupur (Dehradun) Paonta Sahib starts from Ch. Km 97.00 i.e. after Bata bridge in Paonta Sahib. 7. It is averred that the land in question has been notified under Section 3A and the said notification was published in the gazette of India under the NH Act, 1956 on 26.03.20212. The scope of work under Ballupur (Dehradun) Paonta Sahib starts from Ch. Km 97.00 i.e. after Bata bridge in Paonta Sahib. The alignment suggested by petitioner during hearing by CALA, Paonta Sahib from Bata Bridge Chowk/Mahadev Chowk near NCL factory across Bata Khalla leading to Kulhaal (Uttrakhand) has been examined by authority and it is observed that the proposed alignment is towards dense forest cover which would result in cutting of large number of trees. The length of bridges and structures will also increase triple times, which will significantly increase the cost of project and make it financially unviable. However, the bye pass has been planned by authority according to the technical feasibility of available site and it crosses Yamuna River on the downstream. Due to the variance in alignment of Yamuna River on the south side of Paonta Sahib town and presence of dense forest cover on either side of the river, the final existing alignment from Ch. Km 1.400 is the most feasible alignment in terms of construction, cost and environment impact. 8. The consultant survey teams also inspected site many times to carry out site surveys. Thereafter, ample opportunities were given to the petitioners as the objections under Section 3C of the National Highway Act were heard even after lapse of prescribed time line of 21 days with consequent hearings on 04.08.2021, 17.08.2021, 07.09.2021, 09.09.2021 and 20.09.2021 in compliance to this Court's order dated 02.07.2021. 9. It is also averred that the norms pertaining to the grant of permission for construction of access to fuel stations has been fixed by the MoRT&H vide circular no. RW/NH- 33032/01/2017 S&R dated 26.06.2020. A perusal of the same would reveal that Para 2.2 of appendix-1 for rural area which says that minimum distance of any intersection shall be 300 m and for urban area, shall be 100 m. Whenever, an oil company applies for NOC for access to any retail outlet, these norms shall be complied with. However, in the case of old/existing retail outlets, the Oil Company has to apply for renewal/fresh proposal as provided in para 2.9 and 2.10 of above guidelines dated 26.06.2020. However, in the case of old/existing retail outlets, the Oil Company has to apply for renewal/fresh proposal as provided in para 2.9 and 2.10 of above guidelines dated 26.06.2020. The said petrol pump is existing since 1987 much before the road was declared a National Highway. It is pertinent to mention that while granting No Objection for access permission to any Oil Company, the Oil Company furnishes an undertaking to authority clearly stating that “necessary alteration including complete removal/shifting of the approach roads at its own cost, if so required by Ministry, for the development of NH or in the interest of safety in this section.” Therefore, presence of old/existing petrol pump cannot prevent up-gradation/development of the National Highway. 10. Lastly, it is claimed that since no violation, statutory or legal or vested rights of the petitioners, as such the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 11. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. 12. In Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty, AIR 2011 SC 3210 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that NHAI an expert body having experience in the filed of development and maintenance of Highways and since the Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of a particular project, in such circumstances, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. 13. It shall be apt to reproduce Para-24 of the judgment, which reads as under: “24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. 13. It shall be apt to reproduce Para-24 of the judgment, which reads as under: “24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub-serve 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 rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or trained due to mala-fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” 14. Similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Protect Director, Project Implementation Unit vs. P.V. Krishnamoorthy, (2021) 3 SCC 572 . 15. On the basis of the pleadings and material placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that none of the fundamental rights or any other legal rights of the petitioners or persons for whom the petitioners are espousing the cause could be said to have been violated so as to warrant any interference in this petition and grant the relief as prayed for in the public interest. We are of the view that we should not undertake a fishing or a rowing inquiry on such technical subjects in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. We are of the view that we should not undertake a fishing or a rowing inquiry on such technical subjects in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Taking into consideration the complex nature of the issue with which we are dealing, we have to be mindful of the principle that judicial review and interference in matters, which require technical expertise must be best left to the experts to decide upon. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that this petition is not maintainable and, therefore, the same is dismissed as such. However, it is made clear that, in case, the petitioners have any other remedy, they are free to avail such in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stands, disposed of.