HC notices to rlys, govt on PIL against PPP pact on Metro station

The High Court on Wednesday ordered that notices be issued to the South Western Railway (SWR) and the Urban Development Department on a PIL that has questioned a Public Private Partnership (PPP) agreement between the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (BMRCL) and Mantri Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for construction of Swastik Metro station in Malleswaram.

A division bench of acting Chief Justice S K Mukherjee and Justice B V Nagarathna gave the order on the petition by Bengaluru Residents’ Associations’ Confederation Ensemble (BRACE) and others. The petitioners contended that the agreement between the BMRCL and Mantri was illegal and that the 2.5 acres of land acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) could not be handed over to a third party. They also argued that the land acquired for Swastik station was transferred to the company in the name of a PPP project and that would benefit only Mantri, not the State government. They appealed for quashing of the agreement.

Opening park to public
The Union government has sought two weeks from the High Court to file objections to a petition filed by one B R Sharan Kumar for opening the General Cariappa Memorial Park off MG Road to the public.

Kumar contended that the park, spread over 22 acres, is a public amenity and people must be allowed into it. Since the Karnataka government contributed Rs 50 lakh to the park’s development, banning people from entering it is unacceptable. A division bench of acting Chief Justice S K Mukherjee and Justice B V Nagarathna on Wednesday gave the Centre two weeks to file objections and adjourned the hearing.

Caution notice removed
Nikon India Pvt Ltd on Wednesday told the High Court that it has removed a notice from its website that cautioned people about buying its products on e-tailer Flipkart, prompting Justice B S Patil to dispose of a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the latter.

In the notice, Nikon had asked customers to look for warranty while buying its products on Flipkart.

The e-tailer moved the High Court, arguing that Nikon was “discriminating” against it though its products were sold on other shopping portals too. It sought an injunction barring Nikon from displaying the notice.

The matter was mutually settled by the parties after Nikon agreed to remove the caution notice.