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