HC expresses concern over alleged faulty J & K rail link

Delhi High Court today expressed concern over the alleged faulty Katra-Banihal rail link to the Kashmir Valley, saying it was worried about the safety of citizens if a major Nepal-like quake happened and asked the government to take a call on it.
It also warned the government that if it wanted to "gamble" with the lives of people, then it cannot be helped.
A bench of justices B D Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that even though an expert committee headed by ex-DMRC chief E Sreedharan had raised serious concern over the existing alignment of this section, why was the Railway Board not thinking about it.

"The only thing that is worrying us is the safety of the citizens, as it (Katra-Banihal section) can cause a disaster. In the wake of the recent event which took place in Nepal, the government should be more serious about it.
"It (the section) is unsafe. If you (government and the Railway Board) want to gamble with the life of the people then we cannot help you," the court said, adding the government should "take a call on it".
The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan alleging that the current alignment of the Katra-Banihal rail link had "serious safety problems" and the Railway Board constituted by the Railway Ministry had rejected the expert panel's suggestions, including having an alternate alignment.

Taking note of the issues raised in the petition, the court also issued notice to the Railway Board and the Railway Ministry asking them to file their response within four weeks. The court fixed the matter for further hearing on July 22.

NGO Centre For Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) had claimed that the "eminent experts including ex-DMRC chief E Sreedharan, senior railway officials and a high-level expert committee had raised serious concerns over the current alignment which most say overlooked the basic human needs of safety, security and comfort while travelling, and makes the entire project unworkable."
Bhushan alleged that this was "ignored to get political mileage" out of the announcement of the new line.

To this, the court said "earlier there was some other Prime Minister now there is someone else ... Why waste good money behind the bad one.