Monday, Feb 18, 2008
Senior counsel Pramila Nesargi, who appeared for the association and two other petitioners, K. V. Ramakrishna and N. Suresh Kumar, said they 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 petitioners said on November 15,2006, the State Government had issued a notification asking the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. to proceed with the work saying that there would not be any change in the alignment.
They said that the metro station could be shifted to the BDA Complex on Old Madras Road instead of the present location at the Arya Samaj on CMH Road.
The State Government disagreed with the petitioners’ contentions while saying that the alignment was finalised after considering topographical issues and other technical aspects. The State Government said that it is not practicable at this stage to shift the proposed alignment of the Bangalore Metro from the Chinmaya Mission Hospital Road to Old Madras Road in Indiranagar.
Dismissing their claims, the State Government said it had decided to locate the metro station on CMH Road and that the availability of the BDA Complex was not a factor to be considered as it was away from the current alignment.
It said the Delhi Metro had carried out a detailed technical study before the alignment was arrived at. It said that there was high density of population on CMH Road than on Old Madras Road. Besides, CMH Road was closer to residential areas in Indiranagar rather than Old Madras Road.
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.
It disputed as imaginary and highly exaggerated the number of residents, shops, banks and other establishments on CMH Road that would be affected by the project.
Justice K L Manjunath adjourned the final hearing to February 25, 2008.
Monday Feb 25, 2008
Smt. Pramila Nesargi, questioned the rationale in having the metro rail link running from CMH Road. She said the objections of the traders and residents of CMH Road were not considered by the authorities before the metro project commenced.
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.
BMRC told the Karnataka High Court that the Metro Rail works on CMH Road was going on as per the original alignment and that the corporation has not violated any law in executing the same.BMRC submitted before the High Court that the “Right to Property” is no longer a fundamental right and that traders and residents of CMH Road in Indiranagar could not invoke this right to seek realignment of the metro rail.
Appearing for the BMRC, senior counsel and former Advocate-General R.N. Narasimha Murthy said the petitioners could not seek realignment merely because part of their property was being acquired for the project. He said the fundamental rights of the traders for trading or having licences or running their business were not taken away. He also said that the alignment had been proposed after obtaining opinion of the experts and conducting scientific studies.
When the public were asked to file objections to the alignment, none reacted. Opposing the alignment when the work has been started is not right, he argued.
Sources:
The Hindu (Change in metro alignment ruled out ,‘Right to property’ cannot be invoked' )
Deccan Herald (No violation in Metro Rail works)
References:
Government Order on CMH Road Alignment: http://bmrc.co.in/pdf/cmh.pdf
Justice Shivashankar Bhat Commission Report: http://bmrc.co.in/pdf/sbhat.pdf
BMRC LandPlan Drawings: http://bmrc.co.in/pdf/lp1.pdf
Other Reads:
Bangalore Metro Updates: Trouble At CMH Road
Poll: Bangalore Metro Alignment on CMH Road?
Poll: work on metro ...
ಈ Story ಅನ್ನು ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರಿಗೆ ಕಳಿಸಿ
ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳು
CMHSERA KaHC Petition Update
CMH road case updates
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.
yes.
CMH Road - Case 2
fight till the last breath!
The Traders plea
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.
Metro will benefit residents of I Nagar
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
Drive safe. It is not just the car maker which can recall its product.
Development at a cost
mindless petitioning
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.
CMHSERA withdraws
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?