About the Pune Metro Committee

[Prashant Inamdar-PedFIRST]

Dear All,

Further to my mail regarding Pune Metro committee, wish to share my reply to response by Gen Jatar (for same mail in another group) wherein he has stated - "Without compromising NCM position on the Pune Metro,

​ we 

see deep resentment that the GoM/PMC is not

​ paying heed to the suggestions put forward by Prashant

." He has further stated their experience that no amount of representations can make the government bend to one's way of thinking and has suggested that those who feel strongly about the Metro should consider filing a PIL because there is nothing else that can help.

  

I am sharing my reply mainly because it has some additional information on the Metro subject. 

--------------------

Dear Gen Jatar,

Thanks for your response.

Probably you are referring to the meeting convened by CM on March 7 when you write that you had been invited by PMC but did not go as the GoM had directed that you should not be invited.

The Committee that was constituted by CM did not have as members all those who had been invited for the CM meeting. As you may be aware, CM appointed following persons as members of the Committee -

Mr. Girish Bapat (Guardian Minister -Pune), Mr. Nitin Kareer (Prin Sec - UD1), Mr. Kunal Kumar (PMC Commr), Mr. Sridharan (Ex-MD DMRC), Mr. Manguram (MD, DMRC), Dr. Vijay Kelkar (President, NIFP), Mr. Arun Firodia (Industrialist), Mr. Shashikant Limaye (Retd. Chief Engineer, Railways) and Mr. Ramesh Rao (Alumni Association). (Designations in bracket as given in the GR).

It is to be noted that except Dr. Kelkar and Mr. Firodia, all others were known to be in favour of fully elevated metro as per DPR (with maybe some changes in alignment as required). Thus the verdict of the Committee was a foregone conclusion. 

It is quite surprising that not even a single person from among-st activists and experts who had been raising issues for past five years was appointed as member. Also though the issues raised mainly pertain to Traffic & Transportation, Urban planning, social impacts, neither was any expert from these fields appointed member nor was any related expert invited by the Committee for advice.  

I (and others) have been raising serious issues for more than five years after detailed study of DPR as well as actual site conditions. It is a fact that despite writing several letters to PMC and State Government, there has been zero response. We could meet Mr. Mahesh Zagade only once on May 17, 2010 after lot of followup for appointment. But he only accepted our letter without any comment. Mr. Mahesh Pathak did not meet us at all. In fact he was quite acidic about us in his comments to the Press. We could meet the next Commissioner Mr. Kunal Kumar on Nov 12, 2014 after intervention of MP Anil Shirole. He heard us and said that he would study our points and organize a joint meeting with DMRC in two weeks. More than five months have since passed but the meeting has not happened.

What we cannot comprehend is PMC's absolute reluctance / refusal to discuss the issues raised and DMRC's consistent failure to give reply to our letters. In fact DMRC probably considers it to be below their dignity to take cognizance of letters coming from Citizen groups. If PMC / DMRC are so sure about the DPR, they should have no hesitation in having open discussion with those who are raising issues. 

PMC should also answer the question that if the DPR is so good, why could they not get timely approval of the DPR and complete the work by March 2014 as per the DPR schedule. The fact is that PMC could not even get final approval till the planned completion date of March 2014 even when there was no court stay and the same political group (UPA) was ruling at the City, State and Central levels. 

PMC could have at least used this delay fruitfully by carrying out detailed study of issues raised and possible alternatives to overcome the issues. This would have immensely helped in taking an appropriate prudent decision at the present juncture without any loss of time for studies, which is now being stated as the main reason against any change in plan at this stage. Why should the city suffer and get burdened with a flawed metro simply because PMC chose to be apathetic and failed to act when there was ample time!

It is pertinent to note that even the Central Government has raised a number of queries and given several comments about the DPR which run into several pages. The replies given by PMC are more in the nature of typical administrative replies rather than any serious meaningful compliances. Probably this being a State subject, the Central Government has not pursued the matter further. However two directives of Central Government need to be mentioned here -

1) Letter no. K14011/20/2012-MRTS-IV dt. 11-02-2014 from Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India 

Item (R) - The State Government is advised to rework the DPR on a realistic basis with adequate deliberation on the issues, if any, raised by various stakeholders before going ahead with implementation to ensure sustainability of the project.

2) Letter no. K14011/20/2012-MRTS-IV dt. 31-10-2014 from Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India

Item 5(a) - Considering the fact that the DPR is of 2009 vintage and the recent revision in DPR is limited to cost aspects only, there is a need to have a relook at the alignment and other technical aspects based on the recent developments in the city

Item 5(c) - The major issues being flagged by NGOs and public may be addressed through consultations. A summary statement of the grievances and how they are being addressed is required to be submitted to the Ministry.

Thus it is clear that even the Central Government has acknowledged that there are major issues regarding Pune Metro DPR and has twice asked State Government / PMC to have consultations with stakeholders / NGOs to address the issues and rework the DPR. PMC has not thought it necessary to comply even with the Central Government directives. This speaks volumes about PMC's attitude.

Yes there will be deep resentment in the above circumstances.

Regards,

Prashant Inamdar