The Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 2, dismissed a petition filed by ACT Public Welfare Foundation seeking a stay on the Hyderabad Metro Rail Phase-II project until an independent expert committee studies its potential impact on heritage structures along the proposed route.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha, Aravind Kumar, and Sri Chandrasekhar passed the order while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an earlier decision of the Telangana High Court.
The petitioner had argued that the alignment of Hyderabad Metro Rail Phase-II, Corridor-6, passes through areas containing heritage structures, including the iconic Charminar and Falaknuma Palace.
Independent assessment sought
The foundation sought directions to conduct an independent expert assessment of the project’s impact on these monuments and to halt construction until necessary permissions were obtained under the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958.
Earlier, on February 4, the Telangana High Court had directed the state government and Hyderabad Metro Rail authorities to file affidavits detailing the approvals obtained for the project and its current status. The High Court had also asked the government to clarify whether any committee had been constituted for the protection of heritage structures and to provide details of its functioning.
However, dissatisfied with the High Court’s refusal to stay the ongoing works, ACT Public Welfare Foundation approached the Supreme Court on May 16.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner contended that the state government itself had admitted that approvals under the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017, were still pending, yet construction activities were continuing.
SC raises questions on nature of PIL
Justice PS Narasimha reminded the petitioner that the High Court had already directed the authorities to file affidavits explaining the status of the project. When the petitioner argued that the High Court’s order effectively allowed construction to proceed, Justice Narasimha expressed reservations about the nature of the public interest litigation.
“We have serious doubts when we come across such public interest litigations. If your intentions were genuinely bona fide, you could have filed an affidavit before the High Court pointing out the specific violations and deficiencies,” the judge observed.
Justice Aravind Kumar also remarked that petitions of this nature should not merely be dismissed and, in appropriate cases, could warrant the imposition of substantial costs.
Noting that the matter remains pending before the Telangana High Court, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to raise all concerns before that forum and dismissed the plea.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by P N Sree Harsha | 
