Let HC decide on Sivananda steel flyover project: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case related to the steel flyover at Sivananda Circle but asked the Karnataka High Court to decide expeditiously the concerns expressed by citizens over its design.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud disposed of a special leave petition filed by city resident B P Mahesh and others.

Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya, along with advocate Ashok Patil, representing the petitioners, contended that the irony is that the entire flyover is being constructed without complying with the Indian Roads Congress norms with regard to vertical height and ramp gradient, though even speed-breakers can't be created without conforming with the specifications mandated by the Supreme Court earlier in case of Maharashtra.

On this, the bench asked senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing the BBMP, as to what was the stand of the civic body.

Divan, for his part, submitted that the design has once been modified as another flyover is proposed across this flyover. He also said the steel flyover is going to solve the traffic problem in the city.

Poovayya then contended that bad planning had earlier resulted in flyovers having traffic signals in Bengaluru. In the present case, the BBMP has given a complete go-by to the norms.

The bench, however, expressed its disinclination to go into details.

"How far can we go into it? You are saying one thing, he is saying another. It is appropriate to let the HC decide the matter," the bench said, after a brief hearing.

A petition filed by advocate Balaji Srinivasan, on behalf of Mahesh and other residents, challenged the Karnataka High Court's interim order of January 8, dismissing the plea to stay the construction of the flyover.

The high court had also noted the BBMP, during the pendency of the matter, had modified the design and made a sincere attempt to bring the technical specifications as near to the norms prescribed by the IRC, which has resulted in maintaining the vertical clearance of 4.50 metres and reducing the ramp gradients to 3.50% and 5.60%.

In the petition, the city residents contended the no environmental impact study has been carried out as about 30 shade-providing trees are going to be affected by the project. They submitted that the Social Impact Assessment study as required under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was not conducted.