CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has restrained the Tamil Nadu Government from awarding final contract or work orders for the proposed monorail project without its prior permission.

It also raised a barrage of questions relating to the feasibility and environmental impact of the project, legislative competence and the authenticity of a report submitted by the Pallavan Transport Consultancy Limited.

Passing orders on a public interest litigation petition filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) leader, G.K. Mani, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan sought to know why the Government had not conducted any feasibility study or environmental impact assessment for the project.

Final hearing

Posting the matter to March 8 for final hearing, the Bench, however, permitted the Government to go ahead with the process of finalisation of bids.

Mr. Justice Shah said the objections raised by Mr. Mani were serious and "could not be brushed aside."

The court could not dismiss the plea simply because the PIL had been preferred by a political party. "Socio-economic assessment and environmental impact assessment are very, very important aspects. Why have you not done that?" he asked.

Additional Advocate-General A.L. Somayaji argued that since monorail was a tramway it did not require Central clearance. The Delhi Metropolitan Rail Corporation had been merely asked to study a mass rapid transport system and submit a report to the Government.

To this, the Chief Justice asked, "Can you furnish materials to show that monorail is treated as tram anywhere in the world?"

He further observed that if it was railway, the State Government could not proceed with it. "You are specifically prohibited by law."

If it was a tram, then the scheme had to be restricted to the Chennai municipal area. "But, your project is not restricted to the municipal limits."

As regards Pallavan Consultancy's report, the Chief Justice asked if anyone had studied similar monorail schemes in other parts of the world while preparing the document.

When he sought to know the project cost, Advocate-General N.R. Chandran said it would be known only after the bids were processed.

Earlier, N.L. Rajah, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the tender document running to several pages did not show anywhere that the monorail project would be subject to environmental clearance.

The Bench asked Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, P. Wilson, to take notice on behalf of the Union Ministries of Railways, Environment and Forests and Urban Development.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail