Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana Flyover: Karnataka High Court Wants Project To Be Completed This Year, Tells Contractor To File Undertaking

Update: 2022-03-29 08:45 GMT
story

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday suggested M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd to file an undertaking in court by Monday indicating that it would complete the four-lane Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana flyover in the Koramangala area of Bengaluru in a time bound manner. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishan Kumar said, "Considering the facts that in case a...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday suggested M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd to file an undertaking in court by Monday indicating that it would complete the four-lane Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana flyover in the Koramangala area of Bengaluru in a time bound manner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishan Kumar said,

"Considering the facts that in case a new agency is engaged in completing the remaining work of the project flyover and the process involved in engaging new agency which may delay the project and also considering the requirement of completion of project in public interest. We permit the Respondent 4 (M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd) to file an affidavit giving undertaking to complete the project within a time bound manner."

The bench orally observed that the project should be completed by December 2022. It said, "Our interest is only to ensure that the flyover is completed so that traffic is eased. Finish the project in 2022 only and we will monitor the progress."

By its order dated February 17, the court had directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Commissioner to lodge a FIR against M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd, on charges of misappropriation of funds, on account of delay in construction of the flyover project.

The bench had said, "We prima facie find that it is because of the fourth respondent that delay has been caused in completion of the project and construction of the flyover could not be completed. The public money has been involved in the project and people at large have been put to inconvenience due to the delay in completion of the project."

It had added, "We therefore, direct the second respondent to lodge a First Information Report against the fourth respondent for the misappropriation of funds and take necessary steps against the fourth respondent, by cancelling the contract entered between the second respondent and fourth respondents."

Following which the company had approached the court by filing an application seeking recalling of the court order. Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for the company argued that the order was passed ex-parte and delay in completing the project was solely not on their part but due to certain unavoidable circumstances.

To which the bench observed, "Under compelling circumstances we passed the order. We were not happy to do it. We are totally in the public interest, regarding completion of flyover, we are not concerned about whether you were given notice or not. When you were not coming forward thus we said lodge FIR against the contractor."

Sondhi urged the court to recall the order and pleaded that large investments have been made and the corporation failed to inform the court that the company had been given an extension of contract for completing the flyover.

To which the court suggested, "We can consider your submission only if you will give an undertaking stating that you will complete the project in a time bound manner." Sondhi agreed upon the same and requested the court to post the matter for further hearing on Monday.

The bench in its order recorded that, "Learned senior advocate appearing for respondent 4, is ready to give an undertaking before the court that they are ready to complete the project of construction of flyover, in a time bound manner and the start of construction of work would be done immediately without any delay."

The court also suggested the corporation to take instruction on whether it can continue the contractor if he gives an undertaking to the court for completing the construction in a time bound manner, as the contract has been terminated.

The court gave the direction while hearing a petition filed by one Adinarayan Shetty pointing to the delay in construction of the flyover. The project was to be completed by the end of 2019. However, the construction was stopped abruptly.

The project was initiated under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) scheme. The finances for the construction were to be shared between the Union government (35%), Karnataka government (15%) and the BBMP (50%).

The petition said that the tender for the project was invited in 2014 with an approximate cost of Rs. 158 crore and was to be completed within a period of 30 months. The tender was awarded to Simplex Infrastructure Limited on May 4, 2017.

Case Title: Adinarayan Shetty v. State Of Karnataka

Case No: WP 13605/2021

Tags:    

Similar News