The Gayatri-Maytas 2-Lane Damaged Victims Association for the Chakhabama-Sidzü Section has formally petitioned the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) to comply with a High Court directive issued on February 7, 2024. This move follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Vizadel Yongo and two other petitioners against the Union of India and ten additional respondents.
The petitioners have addressed a letter to the Secretary of MoRTH, transmitted through the Chief Secretary, underscoring their intent to seek judicial intervention if compliance is not achieved. The court’s ruling in PIL/1/2023 stipulated that there should be no hindrance in processing the PIL, given that there were no disputes regarding the compensation amount computed for the affected parties. The court had delineated that the issue of recovery between the state government and MoRTH should not obstruct the disbursement of the assessed compensation. It directed both the state government and MoRTH to expedite the sanction and payment processes without delay, irrespective of ongoing recovery negotiations.
The petitioners have highlighted that the court mandated the state government to present a detailed proposal, including the compensation assessment, to MoRTH within one month of receiving the certified copy of the order. MoRTH was then expected to sanction the required funds and make them available to the state within three months, enabling the Deputy Commissioner to promptly disburse the compensation to the affected landowners. However, the petitioners have noted a lack of progress on these fronts, prompting their demand for immediate action. They argue that any further delay in compliance with the court’s order not only undermines the legal process but also exacerbates the hardships faced by the victims.
This legal and administrative standoff places significant pressure on MoRTH to act swiftly, ensuring that the compensation process adheres to the High Court’s directives and addresses the grievances of the affected landowners. The outcome of this situation could have broader implications for similar compensation-related disputes involving governmental bodies and infrastructure projects.
