A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a direction to Comptroller and Auditor General of India to check veracity of the Initial Estimated Concession Value (IEVC) arrived by the State government while signing an agreement with a private company for maintenance of Nehru Outer Ring Road for 30 years has been filed in Telangana High Court.
Gadeela Raghuveer Reddy, who filed the petition, also requested the HC to declare the concessional agreement made by the government with IRB Golconda Expressway Limited on Toll, Operate and Transfer (TOT) basis to maintain NORR as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner wanted the HC to pass orders to annul the agreement arrived at by the government with the private company.
Mr. Raghuveer Reddy, stating that giving away maintenance of NORR to a private company for a throwaway price, said the action would result in serious loss to Exchequer. He stated in the petition that he had approached the HMDA through Right to Information Act to secure further details of the internal government communication pertaining to the maintenance agreement. However, there was no response from the HMDA till the date of filing the PIL petition, he said.
The PIL is likely to come up for hearing soon. In a separate matter, the HC expressed its dissatisfaction over the State government not taking steps to set up rehabilitation centres for mentally challenged persons and the destitute in different parts of the State. The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji, while hearing a PIL petition filed by a voluntary organistaion, took exception to the government’s failure to respond to issues raised in the plea despite the HC issuing notices to government almost a year ago.
“Persons suffering from mental ill health are note vote bank….if they were.. then the government would have taken steps to implement the Mental Health Care Act..,” the CJ said. Integrated New Life Society for Education and Development (INSED) filed the plea stating that the government failed to take up welfare measures for the mentally challenged persons.
According to the petitioner, it was mandatory to establish rehabilitation centres under the Mental Health Care Act in each district. However, the bench was not convinced by the contentions of the petitioner’s counsel that government should set up such centres as per the Special Act.
The matter was posted to July 13 for next hearing.
