PIL against Road Widening Projects

Karnataka High Court admits PIL against Road Widening Projects in Bangalore

Issues emergent notices to Respondents



Mr. 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 Environment
Support Group and others against the ongoing irrational road widening
projects of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP – Corporation of
the City of Greater Bangalore). Appreciating the urgency for considering
the need to protect avenue trees from needless felling and safeguarding
various rights and priveleges of pedestrians, street vendors, etc., the
Hon'ble Judges issued emergent notices to the Respondents while also
allowing for serving of hand summons.



The PIL challenges BBMP's ongoing project of widening 91 roads (a number
likely to increase) in Bangalore, running into a length of about 400 kms.
across the length and breadth of the old city areas. This mega project
is predicated on the premise that it would result in improved flow of
traffic and reduce congestion. However, no evidence has been presented to
prove that the result of widening would actually achieve these objectives.
In contrast to the approach adopted by BBMP, experience from densely
populated and leading cities from across the world prove that widening of
roads is not the solution for easing traffic congestion. Instead
intelligent design approaches, responsive (rather than reactionary)
traffic management, enhancement of public transport, improvement in
pedestrian zones, protection of livelihoods of vendors, and discouraging
personalised modes of transport have successfully addressed the most
serious traffic congestion problems of mega cities. Such approaches have
also enabled the protection of cultural heritage, public spaces and urban
greenery, significantly enhancing the environmental quality of urban
areas.



The PIL makes a strong case against tree felling as the first step to road
widening by demonstrating that the work undertaken by BBMP in several
roads has proved unsuccessful in reducing traffic congestion. The
Petitioners submit that the actions of the Tree Officer in authorising the
felling of hundreds of avenue trees violate various provisions of the
Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, and is admittedly an action taken
under duress. In most cases where hundreds of really old avenue trees
have been felled, the stated object of widening has not been achieved even
after years, as various utilities have not shifted out of the proposed
right of way, or such spaces have been encroached by places of worship.



The PIL relies heavily on the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, the
National Urban Transport Policy and a variety of circulars issued by the
Union Urban Development Secretary that argue for a rational and
intelligent approach to managing congestion in urban areas. In
particular, it makes a case that the object of all travel is to ensure
people move across cities in safety and comfort, thus necessitating
privileges to pedestrian movement, non-motorised forms of transport and
public transport. Contrarily, the BBMP's approach seems to arrogate a
right for the private motor car over all other modes of travel, thereby
extinguishing many fundamental rights, while also exposing the public at
large to great discomfort and even harm.



The PIL presents a variety of evidence to argue that the road widening
programme is illegal as it has skirted fundamental public consultation
processes required per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. In
addition the draft Comprehensive Development Plan -2005 (CDP) of Bangalore
Development Authority, defining land use of the city, did not contain any
proposal for widening roads on such a grand scale. Surprisingly, the
final CDP – 2007 introduced plans for most inner city roads to be widened
without in any manner informing or involving the public, an action that is
patently illegal.



The PIL is a result of a long and deliberate series of proactive steps
taken by the Petitioners along with Hasiru Usiru, a network of concerned
groups and individuals in Bangalore. The Petitioners draw attention to the
ruling 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 decisions
relating to road widening and tree felling. It is submitted that despite
exhaustive efforts on the part of the Petitioners and Hasiru Usiru urging
the Government and its agencies to engage with the public in evolving such
schemes, the current road widening project has been rushed through
disregarding the directions of the Hon'ble Court. In this context, it is
prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to strike down the road widening
proposals, and the consequent tree felling orders. In addition, it is
prayed that the Govenment be directed to evolve rational road development
proposals that met with the highest standards of law, policy and urban
planning.



The petitioners Environment Support Group and CIVIC Bangalore were
represented by Advocate Mr. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Mr. Leo F. Saldanha,
Coordinator, Environment Support Group, appeared in person. A copy of the
PIL is accessible online at: www.esgindia.org