I.A. No. 4 of 2017

1. This public interest litigation is filed, opposing a proposed ‘Steel Flyover’ on the ‘Hare Krishna Road’, Bengaluru. The petitioners claim to be the residents on and around Hare Krishna Road. They have inter alia prayed for an appropriate writ and to quash Government Order in “XXX” 24.6.2017, according approval for construction of the flyover.

2. Petitioners have filed this interlocutory application, I.A.No.4/2017, praying for a direction to respondents No. 4 and 8 to stop further construction work of the ‘Steel Flyover’.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Relevant facts necessary for consideration of this interlocutory application are, by a letter dated 12.9.2014, the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short), sought for administrative and financial approval from the State Government for construction of the ‘Steel Flyover’ in question. In pursuance of a decision taken by the cabinet in it’s meeting held on 6.6.2017, the State Government accorded their approval vide Government Order dated 24.6.2017.

5. Shri Ashok B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners principally urged that, the proposed construction of the flyover is in violation of guidelines and specifications contained in the manual prepared by the Indian Roads Congress (‘IRC’ for short), on two counts:

Firstly, the vertical height beneath the flyover is less than the recommended specification prescribed in the IRC manual; and

Secondly, the ramp gradients of the flyover are far in excess of permissible limits prescribed in the IRC manual.

6. Shri Patil submitted that, specifications prescribed in the IRC manual are mandatory in nature and required to be strictly followed. In support of his case, he relied upon following authorities:

(2016)15 SCC 480 [Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others v. Arti Devi Dangi];

(2014) 6 SCC 36 [S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others];

2005 SCC OnLine Bom 528 : (2005) 4 Bom CR 25 [Kewal Semlani v. Commissioner of Bombay and Others]; and

(1987) 1 SCC 658 [B.K. Srinivasan and others v. State of Karnataka and others]

7. Defending the action of the BBMP and justifying requirement of the flyover, Shri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BBMP, submitted that, the design for the flyover was approved by the Technical Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. B.R. Sreenivasamurthy, a former Professor of Indian Institute of Science. The BBMP, being a Civic body is mainly interested in the welfare of citizen. Therefore, keeping in view, the critical necessity for the flyover, the BBMP, has got most feasible design prepared in the existing site condition and availability of space. Further, keeping in view, the deliberations before this Court in this proceeding, the BBMP has re-considered the matter all over again and got the design re-worked, which has resulted in reducing the ramp gradient on the Race Course Road side to 3.50 percent and ramp gradient on the Sheshadripuram side to 5.60 percent while maintaining the vertical clearance of 4.50 meters.

8. Shri Nanjunda Reddy, further submitted that, the specifications contained in the IRC manual are required to be followed ‘as far as possible’. Adverting to the authority in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra), relied upon by the petitioners, he argued that, in the said case, the PWD authorities therein, who were constructing the Highway had adopted the IRC guidelines. Therefore, compliance of the IRC guidelines was held necessary by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He pointed out that, the manual for the Grade Separators and Elevated Structures published by the Indian Roads Congress, also makes it clear that the provisions of the said manual may be followed, wherever feasible.

9. In substance, it was urged by Shri Nanjunda Reddy that, the flyover project is taken up for the convenience of the citizen. The design has been prepared strictly in accordance with the standard technical specifications an