IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14583 of 2011 Nand Kishore Singh, S/O Late Bishnudev Singh, R/O Vill.- Muradpur (East) , P.S- Dumra, Distt.- Sitamarhi --------- Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary of Ministry of Road and Transport and National Highway, New Delhi 2. The Chairman, National Highways Authority, New Delhi 3. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Transport and National Highways Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Project Director, National Highway No. 77 Implementing Unit at Muzaffarpur 5. The Collector, Sitamarhi 6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Sitamarhi --------- ---- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 9.9.2011 Heard Mr. Viveka Nand ‘Vivek’ for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. Ajay, Standing Counsel No.11 for the State of Bihar and its functionaries. None appears on behalf of the Union of India and its functionaries in spite of service of notice of the present proceedings. This writ petition seeks a direction to National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’), to alter the route of the four-lane highway of the Muzaffarpur –Sonbarsa section in the State of Bihar, being part of National Highway No.77. We have perused the materials on record and 2 considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the Authority has been entrusted with the task for widening and improving the National Highways all over the country. One such project is Muzazffarpur-Sonbarsa section in the State of Bihar. It is part of National Highway No.77, and it is proposed to widen it to a four-lane highway. The petitioner objects to the proposed route on the ground that large number of persons would be adversely affected, and their lands would be taken over with their houses. His further objection is that, if the alternative suggestion by the petitioner is accepted and another route is adopted, then far less number of persons would be affected. We regret our inability to accede to the submission for various reasons. The Authority had issued notification inviting objections to the proposed route which was published in the Gazette, as well as in ‘Hindustan’, a Hindi daily of wide circulation, on 23.3.2010. It appears to us that the petitioner failed to submit his objection to the same at all and has, therefore, approached this Court directly. The petitioner raises issues of facts which can not be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Secondly, the petitioner seems to champaning his personal 3 cause which can not be entertained in a writ petition of the nature of public interest litigation. Lastly, but above all, law is well settled that this Court normally desists from interfering in development projects of the Government. Indeed the writ petition is in the nature of a personal interest litigation. The authorities have been charged with specialized duty of determining the route of the Highway, and this Court would normally find it extremely difficult to make selection of the route, or to suggest an alternative route. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)