1. In this public interest litigation the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the road widening between Cauvery Junction and Yeshwanthpur Circle is illegal and contrary to law and for a restraint order to the second respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike from proceeding with the widening of the road between Cauvery junction and CNR Rao Circle without following the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act and without hearing the residents of the areas around the said road. They are also seeking a direction to the respondents to follow the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act as well as the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The facts in brief leading to this litigation are as under: Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are the residents of Bangalore and petitioner No.6 is an association constituted by the residents of Malleshwaram for their welfare and benefits. It is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioners learnt that the second respondent proposes to widen the entire stretch of road between Cauvery junction and CNR Rao Circle, and subsequently till Yeshwanthpur fly over. The proposal of the second respondent is to widen the existing road from Cauvery junction to CNR Rao Circle, Malleshwaram, which currently has four lanes up to Bhashyam circle junction from Cauvery junction and thereafter two lanes till the CNR Rao Circle. The second respondent proposes to make the entire stretch into six lanes. The respondents have not initiated any public discussions in this regard and have not conducted any manner of scientific study for the widening of the road. The actions of the respondents are in complete contravention of law.

3. The petitioners are not aware of any notifications being issued in respect of the proposed widening. Despite several meetings with the officials of the second respondent, the petitioners have not been provided copies of any such notifications. They have come to know about the same through newspaper articles. They also came to know that the second respondent is proposing to go ahead, post-haste with the proposed widening of the road without any kind of regard for ecological damage that would be caused by such unnecessary widening of the road. The second respondent has abdicated its responsibility in protecting green cover and is only proposing ‘developmental’ projects at the cost of the environment and by cutting down trees. Such large scale cutting of trees would have an adverse effect on the environment, which is an aspect the second respondent has wholly lost sight of. The stretch between Cauvery junction and CNR Rao Circle junction has nearly 400 trees which have been standing on the said road for the last over 70 years. The trees include keystone species like Ficus Bengalenses (Aalada Mara), Ficus Eligiosa (Ashwath Mara), both of which are keystone species which support a variety of other life forms, Jamun, Jackfruit, Mango, Tamarind and several other species. The said trees provide a green canopy for the said areas. It serve to increase the green cover in the city. The proposal to widen the said road would unnecessarily include cutting of trees which would have an adverse ecological effect. The stretch of the road from Bhashyam Circle junction to CNR Rao Circle is virtually an elevated road with the Sankey tank on one side and the low lying areas of Vyalikaval on the other, which includes schools and convent. About 2800 children study in one school alone. Any widening of this stretch would not be possible as there is danger of the tank bund itself being breached which would have severe and adverse consequences. Without considering all these aspects the second respondent is proposing to go ahead with the widening without there being public consultations and without any proper scientific study. They also produced copy of the report of the Directorate of the Ur