Court Can't Decide Station, Number Of Stops On Metro Line: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 1) dismissed a plea by residents of Chikkajala Village seeking a direction to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to ensure that a metro station is constructed at the village on Phase 2B BlueLine Metro, which is to connect Krishnarajapuram with Kempegowda International Airport.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said,

“The question whether a metro station is required to be constructed at a particular spot on the metro line is clearly a question that is not required to be examined by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”

Further it said “The manner in which the route map of the metro line is worked and the stops on the metro line is a matter required to be considered by the authorities and their decision of number of stops on a metro line would not be amenable to a judicial review. This court also notes that the question as to the number of stops on a metro line connecting the International Airport to the City Centre, is clearly a matter that is required to be determined by the concerned authority.”

The petitioners had sought a direction to call for records from the State Government in the matter of abandonment of the metro station already designated in Chikkajaja village, in Blue line metro (Airport metro).

It further sought a direction to BMRCL to strictly adhere to the original plan to provide a metro station in Chikkajaja village, by incorporating necessary and appropriate changes in the map of metro rail network as published in the annual report 2023-24, to ensure proper connectivity to the residents of Chikkajaja village and other surrounding villages.

The petitioners counsel also submitted that they had applied under RTI for seeking information regarding changes made and said application was rejected.

On this the bench said “As far as non disclosure of information under RTI no prayer is made in the petition and the petitioners has an efficacious remedy against any communication rejecting the request made by the petitioner". 

Dismissing the petition the court said, the petitioners have made a representation to BMRCL, the fate of the representation is not disclosed as yet.

"In this regard we directed respondent no 3 to respond to the said representation," the bench said. 

Case Title: C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 23534/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293

Appearance: Advocate Harish S for Petitioners.