udayavani (Karnataka High court dismisses writ petition)
Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition objecting to Bangalore Metrol Rail works on CMH road in the city as withdrawn.

Justice K L Manjunath passed the orders on a petition filed by CMH Shops and Establishments and Residents Association seeking a direction to shift the alignment towards Old Madras Road. The Judge had heard the counsel for Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) on Monday and adjourned further hearing to Tuesday.

When the petition came up for hearing on Tuesday, the counsel for the petitioners filed a memo seeking the permission to withdraw the petition stating that they would file fresh public interest writ petition.

The Judge taking on record the memo, passed the orders dismissing the petition as withdrawn.

another new public interest writ petition?

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

if they are going to keep making arguments like this then there is no end in sight.

Here is a part of the main post.
She said the CMH Road is narrow and that this would entail acquisition of properties on both sides of the road. The OMR is 180 feet in breadth and just 1,000 metres away from CMH Road. There would be no problem if the alignment is changed, she argued. Shifting the alignment to OMR would save close to Rs 1,000 crore for the State government, she argued. The petitioners contended that the metro would have many more users if its alignment was changed from CMH to Old Madras Road.

based on what? how will you save 1000 crores by shifting to OMR? Are they saying that, metro along CMH road costs 1/3 the total project cost? where did that number come from? and based on what logic will usage increase if they take OMR? bmrc has listed properties and published detailed drawings, how can the petitioners make claims like that?

another funny thing is use of shivashankar Bhat Commision report by both sides
they(petitioners) had given a representation in August 2006 to the Chief Minister pointing out the defects in the project as enumerated by the Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat Commission which had gone into the issue.

The report of Justice Shivashankar Committee which had considered both the alternative alignments and recommended the alignment through C M H Road was also carefully considered, the Government statement said.

yeah sure SBC lists pros and cons of both alignments, but basically says cons of both alignments are more or less similar. The choice is between displacing a few businesses and displacing dead people. It basically asked bmrc to stick to cmh road but recommended certain changes, #1. only one station and #2 rework the compensation. BMRC has promptly dropped indiranagar station and now there is only station. We donot know the exact numbers but , as far as I can tell BMRC has even reworked the compensation package and is more humane than anything that any other project in bangalore has ever been.

CMHSERA is holding up the project based on arguments like this? and making threats like this?
pramila nesargi...
“The matter is pending before the court. We have been, time and again petitioning the BMRCL, to reconsider alignment of the Metro on CMH Road. BMRCL Chief V Madhu fears the court will decide against the Metro. So, the BMRCL has hastened its decision to begin the work,”
“This is the last time that we will issue a stern warning to the BMRCL. We will not allow them to enter CMH Road. We will meet the governor shortly to press for our demands,”

jana, jaathre, yavudu maruLu deva?

IMHO, there is humanitarian case against CMH road. The plea could have been that. That would have been a dignified plea, something that the rest of city could have also be respectful about. instead they seem to be cooking up flimsy technical arguments. Neither structural nor the transportation arguments that they have made are backed by any expert opinion. (Tunnel effect on CMH road, usage will increase etc etc, please read SBC report). They are insulting everybody by sighting SBC report as a supporting document.
 
unless they make a better case, somebody ought to file a PIL against CMH road-association for holding up a public interest project.

I am really really holding back on Smt Nesargi and her comments about metro as a mode of PubTrans. White elephant she called it. But that is a different matter and beyond her scope of the discussion here. Lets move on.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

There cannot be any development without the sacrifice of a few. To improve life of a million people, a few hundreds would be inconvenienced. Do they realize that they are getting electricity to run their establishments because a few of the whole villages were relocated to construct dams?

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

How would shifting the Metro to OMR Road not be a problem?  People are not willing to walk 100m lete alone 1000m to catch public transport. 

This project will make commuting easier for 1000s of residents of Indiranagar.  Why are their viewpoints not being considered? 

Understandably when your whole life as you know it is faced with sudden change, it is hard to accept it.  But to be fair, they are getting compensated for their losses (unlike farmers who probably get 10% of what they should).  Shops on main roads the way you find them in Bangalore is not such a great idea anyway.  It's good that this has been solved. 

Srivathsa

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Everyone has a vested interest in protecting their kith and kin. No one thinks in terms of sacrifices etc especially in our country where resources are so hard to come by. There should be an amendment in the law which prevents people from going to court when it comes to public transit projects. BMRCL is paying them market prices for relocation and the alignment has been done after careful study by Delhi Metro. So the traders better give in or I'm pretty sure BMRCL lawyers and attorneys will tear them apart in the court. There doesn't seem to be any valid argument against the current alignment as this attorney for the traders is throwing up some figures of savings - which god only knows where she got from. 

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Looks like this project will never see completion. Here is another news item on the case: http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/29/stories/2008022961110300.htm

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

is this the brand new PIL that they said they would file, or is it an old one on file? The petitioners had questioned the legality of the project and the decision of the State and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (BMRCL) to go ahead with the alignment of the metro on C.M.H. Road instead of Old Madras Road. any ideas what possible arguments are? legality is that there is a govt order, a comission report and case from which hey just withdrew.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Yes. This is the brand new PIL.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Metro Rail to be operational by 2011
http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/15/stories/2008031562020400.htm

The CMH Shops and Establishments and Residents’ Association of Indiranagar, Bangalore, and others had challenged the project and urged the court to stay it.

Case
The petitioners said the Mysore Tramway Act was not in force and the State was saying that it had taken up the project under the Act.
Moreover, environmental clearance had not been obtained.
They said the BMRCL was not a government undertaking, but a statutory body set up under the Companies Act.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagaratna had asked the State to file a statement/report on the project.

State Government
In its report, the State said the project was expected to be operational by December 2011. It said the project would have two corridors East West and North South...

It said the metro project was not covered under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986. Moreover, the Centre itself had informed Bangalore Metro Rail Company Limited that the system did not attract the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994.

However, a detailed environmental impact assessment study was carried out by Bangalore University.

The State Government submitted to the Karnataka High Court that it had set out 151 milestones for the successful completion of the Metro Rail project and of this, 27 milestones had already been achieved.

Court
Speaking on behalf of the Bench, the Chief Justice orally observed that courts could not decide on whether a public infrastructure project was necessary or not. Courts, he said, in his perception also had limited scope for intervening in financial and ecological aspects of a project or policy.

However, he said courts could intervene if a case was made out for violation of fundamental rights or infraction of legal issues.

The Bench adjourned further hearing on the case till March 26.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Court admits petition against Metro http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/28/stories/2008032853990500.htm The Karnataka High Court on Thursday admitted a public interest litigation (PIL) petition by the CMH Shops and Establishments and Residents Association of Indiranagar challenging the legality and validity of the Bangalore Metro project. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagaratna ordered issue of notices to the State and Central Governments, Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation (BMRC) and other respondents. The association and two other petitioners have urged the court to stay the project, citing lack of legal sanction. They said the metro is not being taken up under the Railways Act but under the archaic Mysore Tramways Act of 1906. They contended that the Centre had recently constituted a high-level committee to frame model laws for the metro rail system. Even the Karnataka Government and the BMRC had given their suggestions to the committee, they said. Opposing the petitions, Advocate-General B.V. Acharya, who is appearing for the State, said legal opinion had been obtained by Karnataka from a retired Supreme Court Judge and also the Attorney General. Both had opined that separate legislation was not needed for the project. The Bench adjourned further hearing on the case to June 4.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments