PIL against Road Widening Projects

Karnataka High Court admits PIL against Road Widening Projects in BangaloreIssues emergent notices to RespondentsMr. Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph and Mr. Justice A. N. Venugopal Gowda,constituting the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,today admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by EnvironmentSupport Group and others against the ongoing irrational road wideningprojects of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP – Corporation ofthe City of Greater Bangalore). Appreciating the urgency for consideringthe need to protect avenue trees from needless felling and safeguardingvarious rights and priveleges of pedestrians, street vendors, etc., theHon'ble Judges issued emergent notices to the Respondents while alsoallowing for serving of hand summons.The PIL challenges BBMP's ongoing project of widening 91 roads (a numberlikely to increase) in Bangalore, running into a length of about 400 kms.across the length and breadth of the old city areas. This mega projectis predicated on the premise that it would result in improved flow oftraffic and reduce congestion. However, no evidence has been presented toprove that the result of widening would actually achieve these objectives.In contrast to the approach adopted by BBMP, experience from denselypopulated and leading cities from across the world prove that widening ofroads is not the solution for easing traffic congestion. Insteadintelligent design approaches, responsive (rather than reactionary)traffic management, enhancement of public transport, improvement inpedestrian zones, protection of livelihoods of vendors, and discouragingpersonalised modes of transport have successfully addressed the mostserious traffic congestion problems of mega cities. Such approaches havealso enabled the protection of cultural heritage, public spaces and urbangreenery, significantly enhancing the environmental quality of urbanareas.The PIL makes a strong case against tree felling as the first step to roadwidening by demonstrating that the work undertaken by BBMP in severalroads has proved unsuccessful in reducing traffic congestion. ThePetitioners submit that the actions of the Tree Officer in authorising thefelling of hundreds of avenue trees violate various provisions of theKarnataka Preservation of Trees Act, and is admittedly an action takenunder duress. In most cases where hundreds of really old avenue treeshave been felled, the stated object of widening has not been achieved evenafter years, as various utilities have not shifted out of the proposedright of way, or such spaces have been encroached by places of worship.The PIL relies heavily on the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, theNational Urban Transport Policy and a variety of circulars issued by theUnion Urban Development Secretary that argue for a rational andintelligent approach to managing congestion in urban areas. Inparticular, it makes a case that the object of all travel is to ensurepeople move across cities in safety and comfort, thus necessitatingprivileges to pedestrian movement, non-motorised forms of transport andpublic transport. Contrarily, the BBMP's approach seems to arrogate aright for the private motor car over all other modes of travel, therebyextinguishing many fundamental rights, while also exposing the public atlarge to great discomfort and even harm.The PIL presents a variety of evidence to argue that the road wideningprogramme is illegal as it has skirted fundamental public consultationprocesses required per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. Inaddition the draft Comprehensive Development Plan -2005 (CDP) of BangaloreDevelopment Authority, defining land use of the city, did not contain anyproposal for widening roads on such a grand scale. Surprisingly, thefinal CDP – 2007 introduced plans for most inner city roads to be widenedwithout in any manner informing or involving the public, an action that ispatently illegal.The PIL is a result of a long and deliberate series of proactive stepstaken by the Petitioners along with Hasiru Usiru, a network of concernedgroups and individuals in Bangalore. The Petitioners draw attention to theruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2005 (WP No. 14104/2005)in which the Government was directed to involve the public in decisionsrelating to road widening and tree felling. It is submitted that despiteexhaustive efforts on the part of the Petitioners and Hasiru Usiru urgingthe Government and its agencies to engage with the public in evolving suchschemes, the current road widening project has been rushed throughdisregarding the directions of the Hon'ble Court. In this context, it isprayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to strike down the road wideningproposals, and the consequent tree felling orders. In addition, it isprayed that the Govenment be directed to evolve rational road developmentproposals that met with the highest standards of law, policy and urbanplanning.The petitioners Environment Support Group and CIVIC Bangalore wererepresented by Advocate Mr. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Mr. Leo F. Saldanha,Coordinator, Environment Support Group, appeared in person. A copy of thePIL is accessible online at: www.esgindia.org
posted by Anush Shetty at 9:12 PM
Friday, May 30, 2008
http://www.hasiruusiru.org/blog