Skip to Content

BMIC - Supreme Court questions notification inviting global bids

140 users have liked.

So, as was expected by most, Supreme Court questions BMIC notification inviting global bids:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Karnataka Government for issuing a notification inviting global bids for the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project when there was a specific direction issued in April 2006 to the State and to Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE) to complete the project expeditiously."

I wonder if the courts have a way of "punishing" either the state government, or the individuals that constitute the government? If the courts can, and they did not, does that mean that they saw at least some weight behind state government's allegations that:

"NICE wants to expand the scope of the project by grabbing more lands than what is required"

I have no idea, may be some law graduates can explain things better. Anyway. All we can do is watch. And wait :)

Source: The Hindu


tsubba's picture

SC - Oct 5th 2007

128 users have liked.
There was a decision due yesterday. And basically the court has decided now go and get that implemented. From Deccan Herald SC asks NICE to move HC. NEW DELHI: Observing that the petition filed by NICE has already been decided, the Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing of the petition concerning the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) till October 29. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari said the court has already upheld the Karnataka High Court judgment and now it was the question of implementation of the order. “You should approach the Karnataka High Court for the implementation of the order or otherwise file a contempt application there,” said the bench. “File a contempt for the execution of the High Court order pronounced on September 21, 1998 in the Somashekhar Reddy case,” said the court. However, senior advocate Ashok Desai appearing for NICE said the petitioner would satisfy the apex court as the matter pertained to its jurisdiction. ‘Change of policy’ Mr Desai alleged that the present government did not want to execute the project. “The H D Kumaraswamy government should realise that change of government should not lead to change of policy or decision taken by the previous government,” he said. He prayed the court to restrain the Karnataka government from taking drastic steps by throwing NICE out of the project and appointing another contractor. The Karnataka High Court in its judgment delivered on September 21, 1998 in the Somashekhar Reddy case held that the company was entitled to sell only 45 per cent of the available land in the five townships and the roads would be handed over to the government after the lapse of the lease period. The Supreme Court in its judgment on April 20, 2006 had upheld the High Court order and directed the parties to stick to the clauses of the original agreement. Deccan Herald comment guidelines

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!

about seo | blog