Fatal accidents increasing on Agra-Lucknow Expressway
Agra, May 20: Speed craze without discipline is proving a major killer on Uttar Pradesh's two expressways. While the Yamuna Expressway has taken nearly a thousand lives since 2012, the Agra-Lucknow Expressway has recorded over 100 deaths.
With nearly seven lakh vehicles using the new Agra-Lucknow Expressway, reducing travel time to just five hours, the authorities have failed to come up with a fool-proof mechanism to check speeding.
According to an RTI filed by K.C. Jain, Secretary of the Agra Development Foundation, "in nine months, there were 853 accidents and 100 deaths".
It is estimated that within a year, one crore vehicles will start using the expressway, remitting Rs 200 crore as toll tax.
The 302-km Agra-Lucknow Expressway, a project of the Akhilesh Yadav government, was opened on December 23, 2016. Toll tax was imposed from January 19, 2018.
While the Expressway is becoming popular, the departments concerned have not yet provided policing or ambulance facilities.
"Petrol pump, car mechanics or puncture shops are non-existent. It is one long desolate grey strip through a never ending wasteland," said a frequent user of the expressway, Sudhier Gupta.
Originally the Agra-Lucknow Expressway was designed for a maximum speed of 120 km per hour with automatic traffic management systems aimed at reducing road accidents.
The six-lane expressway, expandable to eight lanes, includes four rail over bridges, 13 major bridges, 57 minor bridges, 74 vehicular underpasses, 148 pedestrian underpasses and nine flyovers.
The road was built in a record time of 23 months at a cost of Rs 15,000 crore. The expressway spans 10 districts, 236 villages and 3,500 hectares of land.
It connects Agra and Lucknow via Shikohabad, Firozabad, Mainpuri, Etawah, Auraiya, Kannauj, Kanpur Nagar, Unnao and Hardoi. It passes through four National and two state highways and over five rivers (Ganga, Yamuna, Isan, Sai and Kalyani).
The state government had promised that the expressway would have a series of development centres, agricultural mandis, schools, ITIs, rest houses, petrol pumps, service centres and public amenities. But till date there has been no progress in this direction.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
States not empowered to take over all private properties for distribution to serve common good: SC
New Delhi (PTI): In a majority 7:2 ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that states are not empowered under the Constitution to take over all privately-owned resources for distribution to serve the "common good".
A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, however, said states can stake claim over private properties in certain cases.
The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Krishna Iyer's previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The CJI wrote for himself and six other judges on the bench which decided the vexed legal question on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the "common good".
It overturned several verdicts that had adopted the socialist theme and ruled that states can take over all private properties for common good.
Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement penned by the CJI, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented on all aspects.
The pronouncement of judgements is underway.
The top court had, in the Minerva Mills case of 1980, declared two provisions of the 42nd Amendment, which prevented any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any court on any ground" and accorded precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the fundamental rights of individuals, as unconstitutional.
Article 31C protects a law made under Articles 39(b) and (c) empowering the State to take over material resources of the community, including private properties, for distribution to subserve the common good.
The top court had heard 16 petitions, including the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners' Association (POA) in 1992.
The POA has opposed Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. Inserted in 1986, the chapter empowers State authorities to acquire cessed buildings and the land on which those are built if 70 per cent of the occupants make such a request for restoration purposes.
The MHADA Act was enacted in pursuance of Article 39(b), which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and makes it obligatory for the State to create a policy towards securing "that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good".
