The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the State Government to set up a committee headed by the Chief Secretary to resolve the row over the controversial link road slicing through the GKVK campus of the University of Agricultural Sciences here.
The committee will also comprise the secretaries of the departments of Agriculture, Secretary, Forest, Ecology and Environment, two representatives nominated by the university, two representatives nominated by the BBMP and two experts on the subject nominated by the Indian Institute of Science.
A bunch of PILs
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice H.G. Ramesh, passed the order while disposing of a batch of public interest litigations filed by a group of former vice-chancellors of the UAS and others. The petitioners contended that the road would have adverse impact on biodiversity on the campus. The court also asked the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to halt construction of the road till the committee's decision. In any case, the BBMP had stopped work after completing a 3.9-km stretch of the 9.5-km road in the wake of opposition.
The court has permitted the petitioners to present their views both orally and in writing to the proposed committee, besides giving them liberty to produce relevant documents to back their claim. If the petitioners are not happy with the panel's final decision, they may challenge it in accordance with law.
No assessment
Pointing out that no scientific environmental impact assessment (EIA) was made under the project, the Bench said: “It is hazardous to take any view on the matter in the absence of a clear scientific assessment by an expert body relating to the link road project on the biodiversity of the university. If the assessment indicates that, notwithstanding any compensatory measures to minimise the pollution, the vehicular movement on the link road would result in irreversible damage to biodiversity and the research programmes of the university, then the project may have to be cancelled in public interest, and alternative solutions to ease the traffic in the locality have to be explored.”
On the contrary, the Bench observed, “if it were to indicate that the [traffic] … will have no adverse effect … then the BBMP may be allowed to [complete the project].”
The court referred the controversy to the committee while describing it as an “interdepartmental dispute” between the university and the BBMP and said that such rows should be referred to a high-level committee as per a Supreme Court directive.
