Not very NICE

Explore Business Standard

| This is, of course, not the first time that NICE has had a problem with the authorities. The project was begun in 1995, but till early 2005 it had got less than half the land it required. Indeed, the land that was supposed to be part of the project was de-notified. At one point, the government even planned to build another road, parallel to part of NICE's road. A committee, set up last year to review the land required for the project, concluded it didn't need so much land, and the head of the committee got a Padma Shri award shortly afterwards. At one stage during the bitter fight between the state government and NICE, the state government sought legal opinion on whether the project could be modified. When it was pointed out that this would leave the government open to claims for damages, the state said that it had detected fraud and misrepresentation, so the initial agreement was null and void, and therefore there was no question of any claim for damages. This claim, sworn on oath by the state's chief secretary, omitted certain critical facts, and the Karnataka High Court came down heavily on the government for misrepresentation. While the Centre can claim a certain amount of helplessness in matters pertaining to a state government's powers, when things reach such a stage that even the Supreme Court's orders are sought to be bypassed, surely it is time to intervene? |
| In any case, following the latest disclosure, it would be easy for a concerned citizen or group to initiate public interest litigation, arguing that the state government is functioning for collateral reasons. While it would be improper to predict what judges might think of such a case, it would not be difficult to argue the point from a purely logical perspective. So there is a measure of risk that the state government will have to eat humble pie. Far better then to retrace steps voluntarily, rather than risk fresh judicial censure. |
First Published: Jun 13 2006 | 12:00 AM IST