<p>The Karnataka High Court on Monday asked the BBMP to clarify whether its plan to construct the steel flyover at Sivananda Circle complies with the Indian Road Congress' guidelines.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A division bench of acting Chief Justice H G Ramesh and Justice P S Dinesh Kumar was hearing a PIL filed by B P Mahesh and 19 citizens residing near Sivananda Circle.</p>.<p class="bodytext">According to the petitioner, it is mandatory to comply with the guidelines of the Indian Road Congress (IRC).</p>.<p class="bodytext">During the last hearing, the Palike had stated that it was not mandatory to implement the regulations of the IRC, but stated they have followed most of the specifications.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, according to Mahesh, the BBMP has not followed the stipulation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When the bench asked if the design was approved by the sanctioning authority, the BBMP said its technical committee had okayed the plan.</p>.<p class="bodytext">To this, the bench said the Palike would have to modify the plan if the design is contrary to the law, and posted the matter to November 28.</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court on Monday asked the BBMP to clarify whether its plan to construct the steel flyover at Sivananda Circle complies with the Indian Road Congress' guidelines.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A division bench of acting Chief Justice H G Ramesh and Justice P S Dinesh Kumar was hearing a PIL filed by B P Mahesh and 19 citizens residing near Sivananda Circle.</p>.<p class="bodytext">According to the petitioner, it is mandatory to comply with the guidelines of the Indian Road Congress (IRC).</p>.<p class="bodytext">During the last hearing, the Palike had stated that it was not mandatory to implement the regulations of the IRC, but stated they have followed most of the specifications.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, according to Mahesh, the BBMP has not followed the stipulation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When the bench asked if the design was approved by the sanctioning authority, the BBMP said its technical committee had okayed the plan.</p>.<p class="bodytext">To this, the bench said the Palike would have to modify the plan if the design is contrary to the law, and posted the matter to November 28.</p>