HC refuses to issue stay order on Shivananda steel bridge
- The Karnataka High Court has refused to issue a stay order on the steel bridge near Shivananda Circle.
- Lawyers representing the complainant stated that the steel bridge is there is no use, instead the traffic on Sheshadripura Road will increase.
- The tender has been finalised and funds are also released and complainants have filed an application at the last minute creating trouble.
- The bench accepted the argument and deferred from issuing the stray order.
The Karnataka High Court has refused, on Wednesday, to issue a stay order on the steel bridge near Shivananda Circle, reported Kannada Prabha.
The division bench headed by ad hoc chief justice H G Ramesh and justice P S Dinesh Kumar heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one B P Mahesh and 19 others, residents of Kumara Krupa East requesting to issue a stay order on the steel bridge and refused to do so.
During the argument lawyers representing the complainant stated that the steel bridge is being constructed to ease traffic congestion. But there is no use of this work. Instead the traffic on Sheshadripura Road will increase. However, the additional advocate general A S Ponnanna said the divisional bench has already directed the additional secretary of Urban Development department to hear the grievances of the local residents and the complainants and publish a suitable order. This is the second round of dispute and it is inappropriate to investigate into the application.
Responding to this the bench said that the additional secretary was instructed to conduct the inquiry and submit a report within 2 months but since he has not done it a stay order would be issued. Ponnanna objected to this and argued that the project was approved in 2012.
The tender has been finalised and funds are also released. The complainants have filed an application at the last minute creating trouble. They are objecting to the project stating that at the end of the steel bridge traffic congestion will occur but in reality they are apprehensive of losing the space. Issuing a stay order at this juncture would only result in stopping a project drawn up for the benefit of the public. Hence stay order should not be issued, he reasoned.
The bench accepted the argument and deferred from issuing the stray order. The bench also instructed the Urban Development Department additional chief secretary to hear the applicants’ appeal and announce his final order on Nov 2 and posted the next hearing to Nov 3.