Karnataka HC disposes of plea for Metro station at Bettahalasuru Cross, directs govt, BMRCL to consider request
The HC also issued directions to the State Government, the Union Government and the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to consider the representation of the petitioners.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi passed the order after hearing the petition filed by BG Nanjundappa and four others in Yelahanka. The petitioners said they have submitted representations on three occasions from April to May to all the authorities concerned, including chief minister, not to drop the construction of Metro station at Bettahalasuru Cross as designed from the original plan of Metro train route 2B, but they were not considered.
The petitioners said they wanted to know the reasons for dropping the Metro station at Bettahalasuru Cross, and hence submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, to which a reply on May 19, 2025, was given stating that the construction of Metro station in the said place was dropped due to non-grant of funds by Embassy Group.
Stating that the said reason is flimsy and highly illegal and against the object of the Metro project and is not in public interest, the petitioners stated that Bettahalasuru village panchayat covers seven villages and Hunusamaranahalli Municipal Council covers five villages and such other adjacent villages, in all about 20 villages, will be benefitted by the Metro station at the Bettahalasuru Cross. Population of these villages is about 1.50 lakh. About 9,000 employees are working in the Kempegowda International Airport and are residing in these villages, presently travelling by BMTC buses.
The petitioners stated that the people residing in their villages and surrounding areas will have to face severe hardship if the Metro station is not constructed at Bettahalasuru Cross because the distance between Bagaluru Cross and Doddajala Metro Station is 8.7 km and there is no intermediate station between the two destinations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Transport staff to go on strike across Karnataka from today
BENGALURU: Buses run by state transport corporations will stay off roads from 6 am on Tuesday, as corporation employees decided to go ahead with their indefinite strike after talks with Chief Minister Siddaramaiah failed on Monday. Though the state government is roping in private vehicles to minimise impact on travellers, the strike will still inconvenience lakhs of commuters as the operation of thousands of state-operated buses across Karnataka and outside will be affected. Though the Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of Trade Unions of KSRTC, led by AITUC-affiliated KSRTC Staff and Workers' Federation, to put on hold the proposed indefinite strike from August 5 for a day, the JAC said it received the HC writ petition and order copy only by 7.30 pm and all the members of the JAC were not available for discussion and decision. 'We have submitted the writ petition for legal opinion and will decide on Tuesday. The strike will start as announced,' Federation General Secretary Vijaya Bhaskar said. The JAC, which consists of trade unions of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), North Western Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) and Kalyana Karnataka West Road Transport Corporation (KKRTC), had called for an indefinite strike seeking implementation of many of their demands. The major demands include 25% pay hike with effect from January 1, 2024, settlement of pending salary arrears for 38 months (January 1, 2020, to February 28, 2023) and wage revision. Govt is free to do what it wants: Fed prez On Monday, Siddaramaiah chaired a high-level meeting with Transport Minister Ramalinga Reddy, federation president HV Anantha Subbarao and JAC representatives at Vidhana Soudha. After the meeting that lasted for almost three hours, Subbarao said, 'Siddaramaiah remained non-committal on the 25% wage hike revision from January 1, 2024. As against the clearance of 38 months' salary arrears, the CM has agreed to pay only 14 months. The stalemate continues and we are going ahead with the strike.'
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
High Court reinstates mining officer suspended in bribery case
Mangaluru: Ina significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has overturned the suspension of Deputy Director of the Department of Mines and Geology, Krishna Veni, ruling that she should be reinstated to her current position without delay. Krishna Veni was arrested by Lokayukta police on May 28 on bribery charges relating to the issuance of house construction approvals. She later filed a writ petition, asserting that the allegations were baseless and motivated by a conspiracy involving vested interests. The High Court, after reviewing her petition and documents, found that the Lokayukta action was triggered by a complaint lacking credibility. The court directed the State Department of Mines and Geology to allow her to resume duty. Sources familiar with the case said Krishna Veni had initiated the use of advanced systems like the Sand App and GPS-based tracking to introduce transparency in sand and mining regulation. Her push for reforms allegedly antagonised individuals involved in illegal sand extraction. It has also emerged that a previously suspended officer, allegedly aligned with the sand mafia, was transferred to Dakshina Kannada and may have played a role in orchestrating the complaint. Public interest groups have welcomed the court's decision, calling it a win for honest officials fighting systemic corruption in resource management.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Pollution boards can impose damages
Pollution control boards are constitutionally empowered to impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages under the Water and Air Acts for actual or potential harm to the environment — not merely punitive penalties — the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling that redefines the powers of environmental regulators. SC: Pollution boards can impose damages Delivering a judgment with far-reaching implications for environmental governance, a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha declared that such powers are not only legally valid under Sections 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act, but are also a 'necessary concomitant of the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.' While setting aside a 2012 ruling of the Delhi high court that stripped pollution control boards of their authority to seek environmental damages, the court underscored that remediation and prevention, not just punishment, must lie at the heart of environmental regulation in India. 'This order is a very good development. In fact, this was a concern with Air and Water acts because earlier they were excessively focused on punitive action which led to criminalisation. That was not a good tool to drive change. Civil penalties are very important tools to drive action but they were either imposed by NGT or by Supreme Court,' said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment. The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, drew a critical distinction between punitive penalties imposed after finding legal violations, and restitutionary damages, which may be imposed even ex-ante -- before actual environmental harm occurs. In doing so, the court reinforced the preventive role of regulatory authorities, aligning Indian law with global environmental principles such as 'polluter pays' and precautionary action. 'Environmental regulators can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sums or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure…These powers are incidental and ancillary to their statutory empowerment and are critical to preventing environmental degradation,' it held. Importantly, the court clarified that such damages are not punitive fines and therefore do not require the procedural rigour mandated for criminal prosecution. Instead, they serve as compensatory tools aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems or mitigating potential environmental harm. The judgment draws from the Indian constitutional framework, particularly Article 48A (State's duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens' fundamental duty to safeguard natural resources). The bench reasoned that in the face of climate change and rising pollution, restoration of the environment is a core constitutional obligation and not just a statutory function. 'Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights…But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow,' it noted. The court called environmental protection 'perhaps the most significant duty' imposed under Article 51A, and asserted that regulators must be allowed to act with foresight and autonomy. It emphasised the importance of institutional integrity, independence from government and industrial control and domain expertise within the pollution control boards. The judgment further consolidated the 'polluter pays' principle into Indian jurisprudence, observing that it applies in three scenarios -- when regulatory thresholds are breached causing environmental damage; when no thresholds are breached, yet damage occurs; and when there is a likelihood or risk of environmental damage, even if no harm has occurred yet. In all three instances, the court held, pollution control boards are duty-bound to act, not merely after the fact, but proactively. 'Environmental regulators have a compelling duty to adopt and apply preventive measures irrespective of actual environmental damage. A restrictive interpretation of Sections 33A and 31A would encumber the boards' ability to discharge their duty.' 'This is very good because precautionary action gives you space to drive implementing agencies to enable implementation. More importantly, the polluter pays principle helps in mobilizing additional resources to meet the cost of implementation. For example in Delhi, trucks pay environmental compensation charge, big diesel cars also pay env compensation and there is a cess on diesel. These helped create dedicated funds meant for meeting pollution control measures,' Roychowdhury said. Stressing the importance of democratic participation in environmental governance, the court said future rules must include provisions enabling citizen complaints and community involvement in regulatory oversight. It added that pollution control boards, being the first line of defence, must be accessible, transparent, and accountable. While expanding the powers of regulators, the court emphasised that restitutionary powers be exercised with transparency, fairness, and procedural certainty, and be guided by subordinate legislation in the form of formal rules and regulations. These rules, the court said, must spell out methods for assessing environmental damage, criteria for calculating compensation, natural justice safeguards for affected parties, and mechanisms to ensure public participation in the complaint and enforcement process. The court took note of existing guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in December 2022, pursuant to National Green Tribunal directions, but insisted they must now be codified as binding rules to lend them legal legitimacy and enforceability. 'Boards can decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished or whether the situation demands immediate restoration-- or both. What matters is that their decision is guided by principle, not arbitrariness,' it said.
