PRESS RELEASE

                                                                        07 March 2003

 

Mangalore Airport Expansion to proceed only if Legal

Supreme Court orders Government shall build 2nd Runway only in full compliance of Law

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clarified in its order dated 07 February 2003 that “in constructing the Airport” (2nd Runway and Terminal Tower at Mangalore), “the Government shall comply with all applicable laws and also with environmental norms.” Hon’ble Mr Justice S. N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. N. Agrawal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made this order whilst dismissing a Special Leave Petition No. CC1172/2003 filed by Environment Support Group and others, challenging the order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 27 May 2002, in Writ Petition 20905/2002, filed by Arthur Pereira and others.

 

The Airports Authority of India proposed to expand the Mangalore Airport at the behest of the Mangalore Chamber of Commerce and Industry during 1987.  For various reasons the project remained without progress for long, even though land acquisition proceedings were initiated.  A total area of 190 acres abutting the existing Mangalore Airport was identified to build a 2nd Runway and Terminal Tower to enable landings of Airbus 320 class of aircraft, and also for international flight movements.

 

The land identified for building the 2nd Runway involved a southward direction from the existing short runway that allowed only flight movements of Boeing 737 and smaller aircraft.  This land was along a cliff, with a drop of about 100 metres on all sides except where there was interconnection with the old terminal building.  Such topography was inherently unsuitable for the building of such an airport, as it would never allow compliance with any national and international standard for airport construction and design.  This was pointed out by local communities that resisted the development under the banner of the Vimana Nildhana Vistharana Virodhi Samithi (Airport Expansion Opposition Committee).

 

A more appropriate location for the expansion of the airport would have been towards north from the existing runway.  However, this option was not even considered as the acquisition of such lands would displace about 70 large landholding families, most being highly connected politically.  Instead the Government of Karnataka decided to acquire for expansion land that would displace 208 families, mostly from a Dalit background, several of whom were settled here from bonded labour immediately after independence.

 

A decade long resistance by the project affected communities was repeatedly ignored by the Government, even when it was highlighted that project as proposed, if built, would be in fundamental violation of Aircraft Act of India, the binding standards prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the National Building Code of India, Environment Protection Act, and the Town and Country Planning Act.

 

The specific violations of standards would be as follows:

 

1.      The minimum required width of the basic strip for an instrument runway has to be 300 metres.  The proposed 2nd Runway has a total physical width of only 200 metres.  This stringent standard has to be complied with per the Aircraft Act of India (vide Notification of Ministry of Civil Aviation No. SO988 dated 5th January 1988) and Annex 14 of the ICAO standards which is binding as India is a signatory to the Treaty.  The reason this standard is fundamental is because in the case of an instrument runway, the pilot should be able to land or take off merely on the strength of instrument support and without sighting the runway.  To provide for instrument or human error, this minimum width is mandatory.  This standard also provides eminently for emergency evacuations measures.  In the proposed project, there is a 100 metres drop all around the 200 metres available for the basic strip of the runway.  This is highly constraining in the occurrence of an error, and provides for absolutely no emergency evacuation measure. 

2.      Techno-Economic feasibility report should be the basis for acquisition of land, but no such report exists till date.  Land acquisition process was instead initiated without any such basis, resulting in the displacement of 208 families. 

3.      An Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project is mandatory according to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued per the Environment Protection Act.  Such a study is yet to be initiated.  Following this there is the mandatory requirement to hold a Public Hearing, which has not and cannot be held except on the basis of the EIA.  It may be pertinent to point out here that the municipal waste disposal facility of Mangalore is within four kilometers of the proposed runway, when Rule 81B of the Aircraft Rules explicitly state that such facilities should not be within 10 kms of an airport.  Further, the 9 mtpa Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Refinery is situated within 4 kms. and the 220 KVA high tension transmission lines run within 1.5 kms. of the approach funnel of the proposed 2nd Runway.  Standards prescribe that the refinery should be 8 kms. away, and the transmission line at least 3 kms. away from the runway as it may interfere electronically with aircraft instruments.

4.      A proposal detailing the scheme should be made available to the public for comment per the Town and Country Planning Act for a period of sixty days.  This has not been made available.

Pressing these points a case was made before the High Court of Karnataka first during 1997 in Writ Petition No. 37681. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition on grounds that it was “premature”.  Thereafter, another Public Interest Petition was filed in Writ Petition 20905 during 2002.  The Hon’ble Court dismissed this petition stating that the petitioners have “not been able to show how the construction of 2nd Runway and Terminal Tower in Mangalore Airport will be against the public interest”.  The Court however ordered that the “Authorities concerned have to complete all formalities as per law before commencement of the project.  Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.  However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this Petition will not preclude the concerned Authorities to take all necessary precaution and to complete the formalities as per law before proceeding with the project in question.”

 

The instant SLP challenging this order of the High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the explicit clarification that “the Government shall comply with all applicable laws and also with environmental norms.” 

 

The operative word here is shall, for unless the project is developed per the requisite standards, the 2nd Runway and Terminal Tower shall not be built at all.

 

 

 

 

Arthur Pereira                                                                          Leo F. Saldanha

Petitioner                                                                                 Coordinator

                                                                                                Environment Support Group

                                                                                                Petitioner

 

 

Address for contact:

 

Environment Support Group ®

S-3, Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens,

Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560041. INDIA

Telefax: 91-80-6341977/6531339

Email: [email protected]n