<p>Bengaluru: A second petition against Bengaluru’s proposed tunnel road has been filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), stating that the circumvention of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) regime was in direct violation of the NGT order.</p>.<p>The original application by Pratibha R and others filed before the NGT’s Southern Zone bench noted that the 6-lane tunnel was a new highway project that required clearance. “Even if not considered a highway (assuming but not admitting, in arguendo), it is an area development project requiring prior clearance under entry 8(b) of the EIA Notification, 2006,” the application stated.</p>.Bengaluru: 8 arrested for kidnapping four call centre employees in Koramangala.<p>The applicant pointed to the NGT’s ruling in the application against the steel flyover (Neelaiah v Union of India), yet another controversial project. The tribunal had directed the authorities to obtain prior environmental clearance before proceeding with the project. In another case challenging the environmental clearance given to 100-km flyovers across Bengaluru (Environment Support Group v KRDCL), the government had filed a memo stating that it would not proceed with the project. The case was disposed of in view of the government’s position.</p>.<p>“The subject project is yet another iteration of the earlier attempts, and the twin 3-lane tunnels of total length 17.496 km from the north to the south of the city. These tunnels are proposed at a depth of 15.5 metres below ground level. The finished diameter of the tunnel is 13.5 m, meaning that the area of construction would necessarily have to be much wider,” she said, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the authorities and contractors from going ahead with the project.</p>.<p>The applicant noted that the tunnel project needs to be evaluated under the category of ‘Highways’ as explained under section 7(f) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification 2006, which notes that ‘highways’ include expressways. Even if assuming that the project is not a highway, the project requires clearance under 8(b) as an ‘area development project’.</p>.<p>Noting that conducting EIA studies will help in informed decision-making, the applicant said the authorities were violating the principle of sustainable development by circumventing it. The applicant stated that the Detailed Project Report was devoid of key details and goes against the city’s Comprehensive Mobility Plan as pointed out by the Directorate of Urban Land Transport.</p>.<p>The application comes weeks after the NGT issued notice to the authorities based on an application by the Bengaluru Praja Vedike and others who questioned the tunnel.</p>.<p>During the previous hearing, the authorities had submitted to the tribunal that the project was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka. However, the NGT noted that the hearing would continue and asked them to file their response, posting the matter for December 6.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: A second petition against Bengaluru’s proposed tunnel road has been filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), stating that the circumvention of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) regime was in direct violation of the NGT order.</p>.<p>The original application by Pratibha R and others filed before the NGT’s Southern Zone bench noted that the 6-lane tunnel was a new highway project that required clearance. “Even if not considered a highway (assuming but not admitting, in arguendo), it is an area development project requiring prior clearance under entry 8(b) of the EIA Notification, 2006,” the application stated.</p>.Bengaluru: 8 arrested for kidnapping four call centre employees in Koramangala.<p>The applicant pointed to the NGT’s ruling in the application against the steel flyover (Neelaiah v Union of India), yet another controversial project. The tribunal had directed the authorities to obtain prior environmental clearance before proceeding with the project. In another case challenging the environmental clearance given to 100-km flyovers across Bengaluru (Environment Support Group v KRDCL), the government had filed a memo stating that it would not proceed with the project. The case was disposed of in view of the government’s position.</p>.<p>“The subject project is yet another iteration of the earlier attempts, and the twin 3-lane tunnels of total length 17.496 km from the north to the south of the city. These tunnels are proposed at a depth of 15.5 metres below ground level. The finished diameter of the tunnel is 13.5 m, meaning that the area of construction would necessarily have to be much wider,” she said, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the authorities and contractors from going ahead with the project.</p>.<p>The applicant noted that the tunnel project needs to be evaluated under the category of ‘Highways’ as explained under section 7(f) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification 2006, which notes that ‘highways’ include expressways. Even if assuming that the project is not a highway, the project requires clearance under 8(b) as an ‘area development project’.</p>.<p>Noting that conducting EIA studies will help in informed decision-making, the applicant said the authorities were violating the principle of sustainable development by circumventing it. The applicant stated that the Detailed Project Report was devoid of key details and goes against the city’s Comprehensive Mobility Plan as pointed out by the Directorate of Urban Land Transport.</p>.<p>The application comes weeks after the NGT issued notice to the authorities based on an application by the Bengaluru Praja Vedike and others who questioned the tunnel.</p>.<p>During the previous hearing, the authorities had submitted to the tribunal that the project was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka. However, the NGT noted that the hearing would continue and asked them to file their response, posting the matter for December 6.</p>