NICE has altered road alignment

NICE has altered road alignment
DH News Service ,Bangalore:
A Public Interest Litigation has now been filed before the Karnataka High Court, alleging that NICE has violated the framework agreement by illegally changing the alignment of the Peripheral Road. The petitioner has objected to its exorbitant toll collection.

Petitioner V Nagaraj, who is State Co-ordinator of Dalit Sangharsha Samithi, contended that the outer peripheral road alignment was not the one defined in the agreement. He sought quashing of the State government notification dated December 18 allowing the toll collection.
Counsel for petitioner Nalini Chidambaram said, the peripheral road being incomplete and unmotorable, the question of collecting toll does not arise.
In support of his argument against the toll collection, he cited the non existence of a toll authority charter as defined in the frame work agreement.
As an interim prayer, the petitioner has sought to stay the operations of the notification dated December 18 and restrain BMIC from collecting toll.

























In the submission that ran into over 1,500 pages in two volumes, she said the High Court order dated September 21, 1998 and the Supreme Court order dated April 20, 2006 directing ‘to implement the project as originally conceived in the letter and spirit of Framework Agreement’ had been set aside.
She contended that the alignment had been illegally changed for two kms starting from the North of Konappana Agrahara, while it should have started from the South of Konappana Agrahara. The company, she submitted, had neither obtained clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), nor the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) and had not conducted an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the changed alignment.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice P D Dinakaran and Justice V G Sabhahit sought to know the stretch of the road constructed by NICE.
When the counsel said it was a 41-km stretch, the bench expressed surprise saying, “ How can the government allow the toll collection. They can’t make the public spend the money for the benefit of others.”
“The 41 km stretch of road was not laid overnight. What were you doing till then. Were you waiting for the road to be completed,” the Bench questioned the petitioner.
The petitioner responded that he was not aware of who was constructing the road and to add to this the time consumed to obtain the necessary documents under the RTI further contributed to the delay.
The bench also wondered how the Government permitted the alignment. “What is it all about? There has been no clearance of roads. How did you permit this despite the Supreme Court order?”
The bench then directed the petitioner to implead Bangalore Development Authority in the case stating: “Unless the BDA has handed over the land, it was not possible.” The matter was adjourned.