Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Contracts Will Be Subject To Outcome Of PILs Challenging Project: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (July 16) directed that any contract awarded for the proposed Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Road project would remain subject to the outcome of the public interest litigations challenging the project, while observing that no equities should be created during the pendency of the proceedings.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha passed the direction while hearing two PILs questioning the legality of the ₹19,000-crore project, which proposes an underground road connecting Hebbal and Silk Board to address Bengaluru's traffic congestion.“...Meanwhile, ensure that no equities are created and pendency of present petitions will be communicated to any third parties/respective contractors. Any such contract would be subject to the outcome of this petition,” the Court recorded in its interim order.The Court also directed that a pen drive containing around 7,000 pages of documents relied upon by the petitioners be supplied to the respondents and observed that further arguments would proceed on the basis of the compilation. The matter has been posted to August 20 at 2:30 PM.The petitions, filed by Prakash Belawadi and Dr. Adikesavalu Ravindra, seek to quash the tender notification dated July 14, 2025, along with all consequential steps, including the request for proposal, pre-bid proceedings, bid evaluation process and the proposed issuance of the letter of award.During the hearing, Senior Counsel Arun Kumar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the State had bypassed mandatory legal requirements by proceeding without conducting an environmental impact assessment.“They say I don't need to do impact study. I have done DPR, feasibility study... contrary to every policy we have. We have master plans of Bangalore. Hundreds of policies the same government has prepared which they do not want to look at... This is not a road project... but a real estate project,” he submitted.The petitioners contended that there was prima facie arbitrariness and illegality in proceeding with the project without conducting the requisite environmental assessment, despite repeated public assurances. They clarified that their challenge was not to the project itself, but to the manner in which statutory procedures had allegedly been bypassed.Appearing for the State, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty opposed the submissions and argued that there was a limit to the allegations levelled against the project.The Court however observed that Bengaluru's traffic problem required attention, while clarifying that it was not endorsing the State's chosen solution.“The issue here is cognizance of huge traffic issue in Bangalore, it needs to be addressed, it is their way of addressing it, be it by way of tunnel or not. We are not supplementing their view. But if there are some rules or regulations to be followed, you are free to point out,” the Court orally observed.In a connected PIL, the validity of Rule 24 of the Bangalore Metropolitan Land Transport Authority Rules, 2026, has also been challenged on the ground that it shields projects such as the Twin Tunnel Road from scrutiny by the BMLT Authority. Senior Counsel D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioners in the connected matter, pressed for notice, which the Court issued on Thursday.The petitions also seek quashing of the feasibility study prepared in December 2024 by Altinok Consulting Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the detailed project report prepared by Rodic Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and the revised DPR dated February 2025, alleging non-compliance with mandatory legal standards and non-application of mind.Additionally, the petitioners have challenged a November 26, 2024 communication issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka, which opined that prior environmental clearance was not required for the project.Earlier, on October 25, the High Court had sought clarification from the State on whether trees inside Lalbagh Botanical Gardenwould be cut for the project. The Advocate General had subsequently informed the Court that no trees inside Lalbagh would be felled for the construction of the tunnel road.Petitioners for Tunnel Road PILs: Advocate & MP Tejasvi Surya, Akshay Vasist and Vasista RamprasadSenior Counsel Arun Kumar for Advocate Sneha NagarajPetitioners for BMLTA Rule 24 challenge PIL- Senior Counsel DR RavishankarFor Advocates Anirudh A Kulkarni & Vasista RamprasadCase Title: Prakash Balewadi v. State of Karnataka & Others & Connected MattersCase No: WP 31626/2025 c/w WP 28664/2025

Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Contracts Will Be Subject To Outcome Of PILs Challenging Project: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

Ensure that no equities are created during pendency of petitions, Court said.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Contracts Will Be Subject To Outcome Of PILs Challenging Project: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

Ensure that no equities are created during pendency of petitions, Court said.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers