Saturday March 23, 2019
Home India Ghaziabad met...

Ghaziabad metro line under SC’s scrutiny; asks DMRC to submit bid records

0
//

Delhi_Metro

By NewsGram Staff Writer

Keeping a hawk eye on the 9-km elevated Metro project from Dilshad Garden to Ghaziabad, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to confirm that no unjustified favor was given to any company in awarding the Rs. 600 crore contract.

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation was ordered by a bench of Justices T S Thakur and R Banumathi to show all records relating to awarding contract to M/s GYT-TPL, a joint venture of Tata Projects and Guangdong Yuantian Engineering Co of China.

The bench said that it will scrutinize whether any undue favor was granted to the company when the tender of Gammon India was rejected by the corporation. Gammon India asserted that it was unfairly expelled from the project.

The bench asked DMRC to file affidavit informing that the same benchmark was followed for all the contesting companies while issuing the contract.

The petition was filed by Gammon India that claimed that DMRC’s decision not to award it contract was ‘arbitrary and illegal’.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, who appeared for the Corporation in front of the bench, stated that the decision to not grant contract to Gammon India was taken after viewing the company’s past performance in metro projects in Delhi and Chennai. He said that the company had failed to complete its work on time in Delhi and Chennai.

Kumar also said that DMRC held Gammon India as an ‘unreliable contractor’ which always delayed projects.

“How can you be so sure that other companies have not delayed in delivering the projects? Have you done study on other companies also? Did you ask for information from other companies? You must apply same yardstick to all companies,” the bench scolded the corporation.

Next Story

Supreme Court Signals Out Automobiles Cause Much More Pollution Than Burning Firecrackers

Making it clear that it does not want to generate "unemployment", the court said those who would lose their livelihood can't be compensated in terms of alternate jobs, financial or other support if the firecracker industry was shut down.

0
air pollution
Linking the plea for a ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country with Article 19 (1)(g) guaranteeing the right to occupation, trade or business, a bench headed by Justice S.A. Bobde flagged the issue of loss of jobs if there was a clampdown on the firecracker manufacturing industry. Pixabay

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked why firecrackers were being singled out for rising pollution levels when automobiles caused much more pollution. It asked the Centre to apprise it with a comparative study of the two.

Linking the plea for a ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country with Article 19 (1)(g) guaranteeing the right to occupation, trade or business, a bench headed by Justice S.A. Bobde flagged the issue of loss of jobs if there was a clampdown on the firecracker manufacturing industry.

Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right “to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”.

crackers
Observing how there can be a ban on the firecracker industry whose operations were legal and licensed, Justice Bobde said the way out was not cancelling the license but there could be a change in the licensing conditions.
Pixabay

Sitting along with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Bobde said the issue had not been examined on the touchstone of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution.

Making it clear that it does not want to generate “unemployment”, the court said those who would lose their livelihood can’t be compensated in terms of alternate jobs, financial or other support if the firecracker industry was shut down.

Observing how there can be a ban on the firecracker industry whose operations were legal and licensed, Justice Bobde said the way out was not cancelling the license but there could be a change in the licensing conditions.

crackers
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked why firecrackers were being singled out for rising pollution levels when automobiles caused much more pollution. Pixabay

The top court’s observations came in the course of hearing a PIL by a toddler — Arjun Gopal — seeking ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers across the country.

Also Read: Social Media Becomes Major Battleground For Political Parties,Twitter Starts Showing Billing Details Of Political Ads

Noting the work being done by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) to produce green firecrackers, the top court had in its last order asked NEERI and PESO to stick the timeline culminating in the bulk production of firecrackers based on the new formulations by May 10, 2019.

The top court had in October 2018 permitted the use of only green firecrackers with reduced emission and decibel levels during all religious festivals. (IANS)