The report of the House Committee recommending a comprehensive probe into the alleged irregularities in implementation of the BMICP has come as a new ray of hope for the land losers after a gap of 11 years, since both the High Court and the Supreme Court, during 2005-06, had rejected pleas for a probe by the CBI.
Expressing “satisfaction” over the report, many of those who lost their land for the project due to “illegalities” hoped that the government would accept the recommendations, including a probe by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate.
However, some of the land losers have expressed doubt on whether the government would accept the recommendations ‘in toto’ as some “influential politicians and Ministers” are indirectly “supporting” NICE. “The report has given us new hope, and the battle will continue,” said land losers.
M.K Kempegowda, who has been fighting a battle against irregularities by travelling only on his bicycle for several years, is “happy”. He hopes the government will accept the recommendations “without yielding to internal pressures” and will thoroughly examine all the legal aspects.
As some of the old litigations on the project are still pending for adjudication, both in the High Court and the Supreme Court, legal experts say the company would certainly move the courts soon after the government formally comes out with an order, based on the report, as the panel report alone cannot be challenged in the courts. The courts cannot interfere with reports submitted on the floors of the legislature.
Though the High Court in 1998 in Somashekara Reddy case and in the J. Madhuswamy case and others in 2005, had rejected repeated pleas for a CBI probe, legal experts said the new legal battle would be mainly on the alleged violations of the FWA, signed in 1997, as such violations would also amount to violation of the Courts’ orders, which had directed implementation of the project in “letter and spirit” of the FWA. The panel could have gathered sufficient material to establish the alleged irregularities, legal experts said.
