Petition in High Court against metro rail track

Petition in High Court against metro rail track
The Hindu

Pramila Nesargi appears for petitioners; court orders notice

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday ordered issue of notices to the State Government and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation on a petition by traders and residents of Chinmaya Mission Hospital (CMH) Road seeking to stay all further proceedings by the Government in taking up the metro project.

The CMH Shops and Establishments and Residents Association, Indiranagar, and others had moved the court seeking a change in the alignment of metro from C.M.H. Road to Old Madras Road.

The association and two other petitioners — K.V. Ramakrishna and N. Suresh Kumar — said they had given representation in August 2006 to the Chief Minister pointing out defects in the project as enumerated by Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat Commission, which had gone into the issue.

They said on November 15, the State Government had issued a notification, asking the BMRC to proceed with the work saying that there would not be any change in the alignment. They said it was in 1983 that the State commissioned the Metropolitan Transport (Railways), Madras (MTPR), to conduct a feasibility study on the need for a mass rapid transit system for Bangalore. The recommendations of the MTPR were not implemented. In 1993, the project was revived and another study done. Thereafter, a consortium led by United Breweries was selected as a partner to take up the elevated light rail transport system.

In 2001, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation approached the State with the metro rail project. In 2003, the corporation submitted a feasibility report. It then commissioned the Infrastructure Development Corporation (Karnataka) to conduct another study. This corporation pointed out several problems in the project, the petitioners said. They said the ridership of the metro would be higher if the alignment was changed from C.M.H. Road to Old Madras Road and that the extra half-a-kilometre distance to be covered if the alignment was shifted would cost only Rs. 2 crore.

Senior counsel Pramila Nesargi, who appeared for the petitioners, sought a stay on all further proceedings.

Justice Mohan Shantangouder ordered issue of notices and adjourned further hearing on the case.