Gurugram rapid metro case: HC orders stay till Monday

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 5

Just about three days before Rapid Metro Rail Gurgaon South Limited was to terminate the operation of Rapid Metro Rail Project, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday ordered that the operation on both the lines would continue till September 9 midnight.

Some 59,000 people travel on the route every day.  

Issuing notice of motion on the petitions filed by the Haryana Mass Rapid Transport Corporation Limited (HMRTCL) and another petitioner for September 9, the Division Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi asserted: “Till then operation of the Rapid Metrorail by the respondents shall continue on both the lines”.

The petition was filed and fixed for hearing on Friday itself because of its urgent nature.

Appearing on behalf of HMRTCL, senior advocate Chetan Mittal submitted the petitioners and respondent entered into an agreement, whereby the concessionaire was required to develop, operate and maintain metro link from Delhi Metro Sikandarpur Station on MG Road to Sector 56, Gurugram.

The respondent invoked termination clause through the impugned notice dated June 7.  But in view of order dated February 4 passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the respondent was required to take permission from Justice D.K. Jain (Retd.).

He was appointed to supervise the operation of debt resolution process pertaining to IL&FS and its group companies, including the respondent. The respondent filed an application before the authority. But the present petitioners were contesting the prayer, and also the validity of the termination notice and seeking initiation of termination process themselves

Mittal added the final order was yet to be passed by the authority. But the operation of the Rapid Metro Rail Project, in accordance with the impugned termination notice of the respondent, would come to an end on September 8. The petitioners made requests to the respondent and to the competent authority to extend the date. But the respondent has not communicated any decision to the effect.  As such, petitioners were left with no alternative, but to approach the High Court to challenge the termination notice” to the extent it was totally illegal, arbitrary, against larger public interest and also against the true intent of the orders passed by the NCLAT”.