- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25594-DB WP No. 12870 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 12870 OF 2026 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANAND KUMAR S/O M.S. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT GOLD RANGAPPA STREET OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL OFFICE WARD NO.10, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 2. SRI M.C. SATYASAGAR S/O M.S. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.10 GOLD RANGAPPA STREET MALUR - 563 130 3. SRI P.G. RANGANATHA SHETTY S/O P. GOVIND SHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.465, WARD NO.11 TANK ROAD, MALUR - 563 130 4. SRI M.C. MANIKANTA S/O M.S. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.259 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25594-DB WP No. 12870 of 2026 GOLD RANGAPPA STREET MALUR - 563 130 5. SRI KRISHNASWAMY S/O MUNISWAMY MUDALIYAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT 2ND CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR WARD NO.15, MALUR - 563 130 6. SRI SRIDHAR A. S/O APPU R. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT BALAJI THEATRE ROAD BALAJI CIRCLE, WARD NO. 7 MALUR - 563 130 7. SRI K. NARAYANASWAMY S/O M.R. KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT R.F. ROAD MALUR - 563 130 8. SRI R. RAVI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT C/O M.RAMASWAMY WARD NO.9, MARUTHI BADAVANE BEHIND TALUK OFFICE MALUR - 563 130 9. SRI G. SATISH KUMAR S/O GOVINDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT DODDAPETE MALUR - 563 130 10. SRI RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25594-DB WP No. 12870 of 2026 R/AT NO. 316, SRI SWASTIK NILAYA 1ST LEFT, 3RD HOUSE KOLMERAMAYYA LAYOUT BEHIND ROYAL MOTORS MALUR - 563 130 11. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O RAMAPPA AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A SHATI NAGAR MALUR - 563 130 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. KARNATAKA STATE EAP / LOKA UPAYOGA DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR - 563 101 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (KSHIP) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (PIU) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25594-DB WP No. 12870 of 2026 HOSKOTE-MALUR CORRIDOR (PACKAGE-2) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / KSHIP DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS NEW DELHI - 110 001 6. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HUBBALLI - 580 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3 & SRI H.S. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PLACE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN THE DETAILED PROJECT REPORT, TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL / IMPACT STUDIES, AND ALL FEASIBILITY MATERIALS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ELEVATED CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PACKAGE-2 AFFECTING MALUR TOWN & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25594-DB WP No. 12870 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia, impugning the decision of the respondents to implement the elevated corridor package to Malur town as being 'arbitrary, unscientific, non-transparent' and contrary to constitutional principles. The petitioners also prays that an independent expert committee be constituted to examine the feasibility, necessity and environmental consequences of the said project and to find the least intrusive alternative to the project insofar as it affects Malur town. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to photographs of the construction being raised as well as the route map of the road, which indicates that construction has commenced. He submits that there is an apparent anomaly as the elevated corridor connects a railway overhead bridge [ROB], which is only 36 feet wide. But the width of the elevated corridor is 100 feet. Resultantly, there would be a congestion on the bridge as the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25594-DB WP No. 12870 of 2026 elevated corridor before and after the bridge would be significantly wider. He submits that there is no permission to widen the width of the ROB and therefore no purpose would be served by the construction of the elevated corridor as the bridge would serve as a bottleneck. 3. We are not persuaded to entertain the present petition. The project is already under construction. Undeniably there is a requirement for providing wider roads to alleviate the problem of congestion. Insofar as the ROB serving as bottleneck is concerned, there is no reason to believe that the respondents would not remove the bottleneck for the effective benefit of the elevated corridor. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12