[K-Rail Silverline] Central Government is equal partner; has responsibility to answer concerns: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that since the Central government is an equal partner with the Kearla Government in the K-Rail (Kerala Rail Development Corporation Limited) project it is equally responsible to address the concerns regarding the project. .Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that the K- Rail is a joint venture company under the Government of Kerala and the Ministry of Railways of Government of India and has been set up for complementing Indian Railways in augmenting the railway infrastructure within the State of Kerala. The State and Central governments have a 51% and 49% share in K-Rail respectively.Therefore, the judge remarked that the Central government must also answer the questions raised regarding K-Rail's Silverline project. "I will not treat Government of India as a lesser partner. I will treat you as an equal partner in K-Rail. Then your responsibility to answer all these concern is also equal...There is a fear created, at least in the minds of these petitioners. And I thought as a constitutional court, we could try to allay that," Justice Ramachandran orally remarked. The judge went on to reject the political motives that have been ascribed to the court in light of the pending cases disputing land survey and acquisition proceedings for the project."This project should have been done so smoothly. You are also part of it. Such projects are there in other parts of India. That is why the Supreme Court correctly said have a pan-India approach. We can't fall for these politics though they try to ascribe politics to us. We can't fall for it", the judge orally observed. .The Silverline Project was recommended by K- Rail for development of a 529.45 km semi-high-speed rail corridor connecting the State's northern most and southern most districts (Kasaragod and Thiruvananthapuram). The project is expected to cost the public exchequer over ₹60,000 crores.The State of Kerala is currently witnessing a massive row from several people who found out that they would be displaced as well as those concerned about the potential environmental impact of the project..The Central government and the Railway Board had previously filed a statement through Assistant Solicitor General of India S Manu which stated that it has serious concerns regarding the Silverline project and suggested that land acquisition for the same be halted for the time being..Today, the petitioners raised concerns that the survey was being conducted for land acquisition, but the Court assured them that the responses from the State government confirmed that the survey was being conducted for SIA and there was no need to worry about land acquisition at this stage.However, the Court questioned the Central government on its silence and asked it to clarify its stance once again..The Court was considering a batch of petitions challenging the steps taken by the State in relation to the project and seeking to restrain all pre-investment activities including land acquisition.The single-judge had previously interdicted the survey proceedings as he noted that going by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR Act), 2013, an action for acquisition will have to follow the mandatory statutory scheme.Subsequently, the State government appealed against the interim order of the single-judge..A Division Bench of the High Court then opined that the State is well within its rights and is adequately empowered to continue with the survey to conduct the Social Impact Assessment (SIA). It, therefore, lifted the stay on land survey proceedings ordered by the single-judge.Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench as well. It is while the Division Bench was considering the State's appeal, that the Central Government filed its statement raising concerns regarding the project and stating that it had only given an in-principle nod to the project..Today, Justice Devan Ramachandran closed a few of the petitions after recording that one of the petitioners had filed a review petition on the Division Bench's decision.