CM Siddaramaiah to meet Nitin Gadkari regarding Bengaluru-Mysuru Expressway
Bengaluru, July 29: With accidents on rise on the Bengaluru-Mysuru Expressway, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Saturday said he would meet Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways Nitin Gadkari and point out the flaws on the expressway and changes to be made.
Speaking to reporters after inspecting accident-prone areas of the Expressway near Mandya, Siddaramaiah accused the BJP government of inaugurating it in a hurry ignoring the flaws that was resulting in accidents.
"I am going to Delhi and will meet Gadkari and ask him to rectify things (on the Expressway). A proposal for Rs 150.81 crore has been sent to the Centre for improving the service road," the Chief Minister said.
According to him, the work will start from November this year.
To a question on the alleged toll collection going on at those stretches which are still incomplete, the Chief Minister said the state government had no role to play as it is being done by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI).
"We are not collecting toll but I will speak to them," the Chief Minister said.
Regarding accidents, he said the Chief Secretary Vandita Sharma had a meeting with the NHAI officials.
Siddaramaiah said after the Expressway was opened, speed detectors were not installed. Since there was no guard, many accidents took place.
"Maximum accidents took place in June 26 accidents. This month only five have taken place," the Chief Minister said.
Though Siddaramaiah declined to call the project unscientific, he said more safety measures were required.
ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- ಮೈಸೂರು ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪಘಾತಗಳು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಸಂಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿ @siddaramaiah ಅವರು ಇಂದು ಮಂಡ್ಯ ಸಮೀಪದ ಅಮರಾವತಿ ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ಬಳಿ (ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಿಂದ 93 km ಅಂತರ) ರಸ್ತೆ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ನಡೆಸಿ, ಅಪಘಾತ ತಡೆಗೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಕ್ರಮಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಜೊತೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿದರು. pic.twitter.com/EaRX1EvksG
— CM of Karnataka (@CMofKarnataka) July 29, 2023
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.
Court in Bengaluru defers order on ED plea against ‘B Report’ in MUDA land allotment case
Bengaluru (PTI): A special court for people’s representatives here on Tuesday deferred its order on a petition filed by ED against the ‘B Report’ filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta police in the MUDA land allotment case.
The report has cleared Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of wrongdoing. However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the complainant, activist Snehamaayi Krishna, have filed objections challenging the report and demanded a deeper probe.
During the hearing, the presiding judge Santosh Gajanan Bhat stated that a decision on the B Report would be taken only after the Lokayukta police submits a complete investigation report.
As a result, the court adjourned the proceedings and posted the next hearing for May 7.
The court also granted the Lokayukta police permission to continue its investigation, following a request made by the agency.
Earlier, the Mysuru division of the Lokayukta police had submitted an initial report based on its inquiry into allegations against Siddaramaiah and three others.
However, the court observed that the investigation should not be limited to just four individuals and directed the police to probe all those involved and file a comprehensive report.
The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), in which CM Siddaramaiah has been accused of misusing his position.
The allegations suggest that residential sites were allotted in violation of norms and procedures, potentially benefiting certain individuals, including Siddaramaiah’s family members.
The complaint filed by activist Snehamaayi Krishna prompted the Lokayukta to initiate an investigation.
A ‘B Report’—essentially a closure report indicating no evidence of wrongdoing—was later filed, stating there was no sufficient material to prosecute the accused.
However, this report has now been contested, with both the ED and the complainant arguing that crucial aspects of the case were overlooked or insufficiently examined.
