High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd vs Union Of India on 8 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd vs Union Of India on 8 July, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit

mm fififlm

aswwmw war” mmmwmwmmm wmww @m:mwm_w&-3: mmmméam WEQQM QQURY Q? Wflflsfiffiiifl Wififi COME? OF §€ARNAT&K& H§G§*§ Cflim? @F %&%N&Tfi55*%;;=;;;i;=;.

-1-

in: THE HIGH councr OF :<ARNATA1<A AT BANGALORE
BATES THIS "me 8"' DAY :35 JULY

FREE???

TI-ifi momma ml. 9.3. BINAKARAN, tit}-iiéi’-“.3_i;.¥::5’i;f’tI:’a.:’E;’;”_”

8ETWEEfl:

M15. El’i§§INERI_l’!iG”{ID. 130.,
A CG’!-1P:?3.£iY aeaisreaen usaaea THE
csmaauzss 19s«s, %
ma mime M

maceisrsiaao €!FIC&

AT_4B¥9+.1?, awmmmma,

VISHAKA?AT?éA%!__-$30 016
‘asvrn av ms Asszsrmr csesuem. rmaacsea
Mr~…'{.RAMESH_

PETITIGNER

fay $91 SEISEIOR coxmssz. FUR
Z M!s;’€:R§SéTu*§W,V’Ffi.£?§TNER5, A£>Vs.,)

…_A£’é;f3 :

” ~. t”{flAfl=fi

* ‘t3»£%ifi3f#£ amnnm

T§”!RGUG§*i THE VHNISTRY OF

ixassw aevewvnseaa

KRISHI BHAVAN,

NEW 9ELflI*-110 W1

2 swam or-” KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
uaam 3EVEi.0?MENT,

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE

3 BANGALQRE METRO RfiJL.’C0’R9QF:AT.IQN 1.19., «A .
BMTC: COMPLEX, 3*” mmn, :!QB?.F{tE}Ai3,”-
SHANTHINAGAR, aA1v<3ALc;2s:.£:~5m 02:2 % % 2 A
RE? av rrs MANAGING oxaemcm " 2

4 RITES – 9:21 -951 – 5.'i"S'FRA
GENERAL CON'$§§'LTfiWE_.'-3 BANGALGRE METRO
RAIL PROJECT, 3&0 Fi–.£3t?3&.._

BMTC CQMPLEX,'-vK.jH.RQfi§D, " '
5HARTH,INAGéAR,: aéawcmege-Egan 927
[BY PROJECT _M+§tNfir.GER

5 !ViA¥*lfi;{iE'$*§'C§ nmecma'
19239.6 Rfis§i;'C1DP0RA1'I0N LTD.,
Ema tZfz3M9LEX.;=3Rs3 FLOOR i<.H.ROAD_.
,B'ANGALORE-560 027

% RESFQNDENTS
._f{3y;$Iv'zT. «Imam AKBER, GA, ma R2

% «_ sax Aw, FOR aw ASSTS., A9Vs., ma R3, R4

m%§@§~% mmw $3? mwmmm WQM mm'? W?' Mfifi/€Wfl4T&KA Wfififlfi mam" Q? mmmmm Wéfifi?-E QQMR?

A Z WP. 1.3 FILED PRAYING TO – DIRECT THE
1 k{Am=oziemEm car A PMEL or zmepemem
T – _C§;:NsmucncN EXPERTS znnepeaaosm :25 “mg R3 TC} 5
#% m 5vAL.u.e;Te ma cousmumuw memons EMPLGYED

3′! “me R3 m 5 Am To mmme A aeavzzm as THE

mum Q? %&flNW§’&Kfi. Wiflw flflfifimf %.M2Nflfl%=w.=_.a-

-3-

Wfifi fiflfifim

SAFEST CGNSTRGCTIQM METHGDULCXEV TKAT MAY BE
EM?1.0YEEJ FOR THE WOR.K$ T9 BE TAKEN __ UP IN
coazseswso AREAS sum AS CHINfiiAYAv,.VVi’%: I:’¥S1(}N
HOSPITAL :::c:A::.

WLLGWING:

Q
E
E
%
§
§
3
Q
Q
3
§
§
3%
E
%

This fgéiitinn is filed undar
Anzac’ lets dtmsiitutfion of India sneaking
for Vt:¥1″ta”‘f::V§V.l§;§3r:’iz?i§E¢-::*atli’e’!V’,s;:-

DifégtA’.the..”-~'[‘appaintment of a par-uai of

” L*indepéns5V}eVVnt ‘cionstt-uction experts independent

% raspandéfit Nos. 3 to 5 to evatuate the

. mathods empioyed by the
:’€§’e9_ndsnt .F&t;’2$$;A3 bi: to provide a report
arkm *safi&t””‘c<§n}t§tfiruétiaavn mathodeiogy that
L A 'i"::"r* the warks no be taken up
fifjeas such as Chinrrsaya Mimor:

% %*£*s§é?%¥7?W :-

\./’

mwwmm mmmmmsmmm WMWW fiflflwflfiflflfl Wfifiilfl fifigwgfif WW fifla%MM*&Mfia. Q?

THIS wan’ PETlTIE}fi comma’ Ui?”FC§£i’:?v?.€LE§fiVIN;§RV’ _

HEARING on THIS may sA3H&Ara%rr”%3.’, j:%%pM§:5E#f:”}vTae

-5-

E
§
$
as
3
§
m

arse admits that there is potaentia! far assnzming that the
present Public Interest Litigatim petitian is Vf-fled far

advansing the inberests of we petitiarser ii’: has

such potential assumptian, .__ érs ‘ canéfifufifian

methodabgy dimmed to’ ba¢Fj jk%:mp:§rnmad&%%&b§ %riw;sonder:t

E
2
§
£2
x
$53
§
am
a
$
2%
g
$
§
E
%
E
E

Nos.3 and 4 is not ansi”hai§jti§ke.p:omthtia§ Fdr accidents
during the stage of is heipless ta

convince a;.’.z:3 / _-or Nas.3 and 4 from

Wfififi Cflififi? Q”?

imp£emaEhfi§:§.t3.:t:’1fi_ as they had

rajmma: V **** “‘fi’£:aii%:ns of tha patitioner.

2.1_ alt that the petitioner had

,wde ‘termcndenm 3 and 4 mm the
fijom executing the wcrk in a congatm
cautioned that the core issue of
53 adjacent sharps and rwidentiai piaces
V K Haddwed. Petifiorzar had alas in gorad faith
ic§§Tbrfiw3’%fi1e rmwndenbs 3 and 4 about fite dificuitées anti

in immementirrg the ‘Segment Launching

\}’

mwtm-mm wmw %E’*z«£”?%€’§.§W§&i’*’%.§é’5W’§»W§ WEMW %@J%3W§ Wfi%KWflW3%W& Wfiwfi flflmfi? Gm? «

the Csntractor of awe third rmpondent. “if-i:3$§¢ja$§22a7r,».fhé

petitioner is constrairzofl to appér*<}5ac?;« ttiia of

-11-

$
9
Q
£3
g
2%
g

area. It is for the wspesndanm 3 to S no decide amut the
method ef censtructian to be adoptnad after taking into

corxsideratien the opinion of the experts.

which msthad of c¢nstru¢tiaon
iike CMH Rand ma. HaviEf§v:vE§gard.vtc«. ;l:mVéb5’§:§Mféé:m, ms
dear that the pefitiaagr h’&’s””r”tfl:n§t4 ¢:;i:E’an§?§ graund for
grant af reiiaf as écfilgfiifkfir Pubfic Interest
Litigatéon. fife is run rrmrit in
this Writ; »e=;ua;§ana%9as& Eh? fiyifigwing mar; ..

%¢imma.

xx

“”” Chief Justice

Sd/-

JUDGE

{$dex:Yes[Ne
Web Ho5t:Ym]Na

$£§$§§

mwwmm Wm mmmmmamemm amww a¢uwmA w«%r;*.: mwmmzmm MWWE QQUKT {W §€fiRNfiI?§”&K.a% Hfififi xtmm” Q? KflRNfl’§’M(& E433-R €3€3U§%Y Q? &W?€N.&”§”fi.

cannet aha appoint pane! af indapenderéf Caéfiéféufifidh

experts as sought for in the w:iE”f1fitit¥¢–fi tn’