State govt’s flip-flop helps NICE

State govt’s flip-flop helps NICE
Deccan Herald

The handling of the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project by the Karnataka government is a classic example of how the State government’s stand can change overnight, derailing the concept that in a democracy, governance is a continuous process though political parties come and go.

As the blame game between the government and the Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE), the promoters of BMIC has reached a flash point, it is interesting to note that successive State governments, including the previous Congress-JD(S) coalition, had always supported NICE.

In 1998, the Congress government even pleaded before the Karnataka High Court that 20,193 acres of land allotted for the project under the Framework Agreement was “the minimum requirement for the project and that the agreement was valid and was in public interest.”

Interestingly, even after the JD(S)-Congress coalition took over, the government was with NICE. In fact, in August 2004 the State government filed appeals along with NICE challenging an order of the High Court quashing some of the land acquired for the project.

However, when the appeals came up for hearing before a division bench of the High Court in January 2005, the State government suddenly changed its stand and withdrew its appeals.

The then Public Works Minister H D Revanna, based on a letter from his father and former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda, constituted a ‘review committee’ headed by retired PWD Secretary K C Reddy to identify the requirement of land both for the expressway and the township and look to the allegations of excess land having been acquired for the project.

The government even issued an order on December 17, 2004 renaming the review committee as the expert committee and broadened its scope and functioning.

Mr Revanna also wrote a letter to his Principal Secretary, a copy of which is with Deccan Herald, in which he asked for all documents, technical reports and clarifications related to the project. He also sought information regarding the extent of government and private land acquired for the project, and wanted to know whether the original framework had been modified at any stage and any financial concessions were given to the promoters.

The K C Reddy Committee submitted its report after holding several meetings and recommended that 2,450 acres 25.75 guntas of land was in excess of the land required for Section A of project, comprising 41 km of peripheral ring road, nine km of link road, 12 km of expressway and one township near Bidadi.

In his report, Mr Reddy did not identify the land but left it for the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board to do so.

On the issue of “excess land” the Karnataka High Court observed that Mr Reddy, who made the recommendation to reclaim “excess land,” was also a member of the high-level committee that had approved the project and was associated with it till the signing of the final framework agreement which provides for 20,193 acre of land be made available to Nice.

At that point he did not record his dissent nor at any stage point out that the land that was to be sought to be provided for the project was in excess, the court said.

NO EXCESS, SAYS KHENY

Reacting to the article “how nicely Kheny moved the goal-post for land” published in these columns of Tuesday, Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises (NICE) Managing Director Ashok Kheny said the issue relating to the “excess land” had been examined by the High Court and the Supreme Court and both of them had ruled that there was no excess land that was being acquired for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project.

Mr Kheny said the K C Reddy committee constituted to go into allegations of excess land suddenly came out with a report saying that there was acquisition of excess land but left the actual identification such land to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB). “We cannot appreciate the conduct on the part of the K C Reddy Committee or the state government.

The inference drawn by the High Court is that the plea of fraud and misrepresentation sought to be raised was not only an afterthought but also false to the knowledge of the state government”, he said. He maintained that he was entitled to get 20,193 acres as per the original Framework agreement and he was prepared to complete the project on schedule if only the government speeded up the acquisition and handing over of land.