The Court issued notices to Union Ministry of Aviation, Airport Authority of India, Bangalore International Airport Ltd (BIAL), State government, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development Corporation.
The Division Bench asked the respondent authorities to file their responses before March 25, to which date the detailed hearing of the matter is scheduled.
The petitioners - three city residents, G R Mohan, B Krishna Bhat and R K Mishra and a public trust, Bangalore Connectivity Foundation have impugned a clause in the Airport project’s Concession Agreement(CA) entered between the Union and BIAL, that stipulates HAL Airport’s closure on opening of BIA.
K K Venugopal and Uday Holla, representing BIAL, contended that petitions were not maintainable on ground of delay, since the CA dated back to July 2004. The Bench rejected the contention observing that the CA itself had been amended during 2006 indicating that changes are permissible and that the matter involved public interest.
Venugopal also contended that since Parliamentary panel recommendations against closing down existing airports were to be debated by the Parliament, the Court could not consider the issue.
However, the Bench said that though panel report cannot be filed or debated in courts, the issue could be examined.
The Bench asked the Union and BIAL’s counsels as to why HAL Airport’s operation should not be continued for some more time till alternate arrangements are completely put in place.
Absence of access infrastructure is petitioners’ main complaint, it observed suggesting a re-look into the matter, in view of present difficulties. To this, BIAL counsels said that having two airports within 150 km distance was not commercially viable. Already Rs 2,140 crore is spent on the airport and another Rs 2,000 crore is invested by hoteliers and entrepreneurs developing the 200 acres land around the new airport.
Union government counsel Arvind Kumar said that the Aviation Ministry had already finalised the arrangements concerning Air Space Management that affect all four airports in city - Yelahanka, Jakkur, HAL and Devanahalli - and same cannot be undone, suddenly.
Petitioner G R Mohan said that the Union government through certain restrictive terms in the CA had bartered its sovereign power in favour of a commercial enterprise,  pointing out that there were closely operating airports in Mumbai, Delhi and elsewhere.
Senior counsels
The Karnataka High Court has designated advocates, Basavaprabhu S Patil, P S Rajagopal, M Shivappa, V T Rayaraddi, S Sreevatsa and M T Nanaiah as Senior Counsels.
A notification to this effect has been issued by the HC Registrar General.

METRO RAIL: GOVT DEFENDS

The State government on Monday defended its power in executing Bangalore Metro Rail project, as response to a PIL challenging the commissioning of Metro project. The petition filed by CMH Shops & Establishments and Residents Association and others has challenged the authority of the government to initiate the project, while also impugning alignment through CMH Road and 100 feet Road in Indiranagar. Advocate General B V Acharya said that the government had legislative powers and executive competence to frame the project under the Tramways Act. The government’s statement of objections included a status report with a detailed chart of the works completed in various routes, till date. It stated that already Rs 400 crore had been expended on the project.