Bengaluru, September 1, 2025:
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 1) dismissed a writ petition filed by residents of Chikkajala village seeking judicial intervention to mandate a metro station in their locality under Phase 2B of the Bangalore Metro Blue Line project, which aims to connect Krishnarajapuram to Kempegowda International Airport (KIA).
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi held that issues relating to the route, station locations, and number of stops fall purely within the domain of the concerned metro authorities and are not subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“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,” the bench observed.
The judges further added:
“The manner in which the route map of the metro line is worked out and the stops on the metro line is a matter required to be considered by the authorities. Their decision regarding the number of stops on a metro line would not be amenable to judicial review. 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.”
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners, led by C. Naveen Kumar & Others (Case No: WP 23534/2025), had challenged the abandonment of a previously designated metro station at Chikkajala village in the Airport Metro Blue Line project.
They sought directions to:
1. Call for records from the State Government regarding the decision to drop the Chikkajala metro station.
2. Direct BMRCL to adhere to the original metro network plan as published in the Annual Report 2023-24 and reinstate the Chikkajala station.
3. Ensure proper last-mile connectivity to residents of Chikkajala and nearby villages.
The petitioners also submitted that they had filed an RTI application to obtain details of changes made to the metro map, but their application was rejected by the authorities.
Court’s Response On RTI Issue
On the RTI grievance, the bench clarified that since no specific prayer was made in the writ petition, the court could not intervene. The judges observed:
“As far as non-disclosure of information under RTI is concerned, no prayer is made in the petition. The petitioners have an efficacious remedy against any communication rejecting their RTI request.”
Representation Still Pending Before BMRCL
The court also noted that the petitioners had already submitted a representation before BMRCL, but its status was not disclosed. Accordingly, the bench directed Respondent No. 3 (BMRCL) to respond to the pending representation.
Dismissing the plea, the court emphasized that judicial intervention cannot be sought in technical and policy matters like metro route planning, station selection, and transport engineering decisions, unless there is arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of statutory provisions.
Case Title & Details
• Case Title: C Naveen Kumar & Others v. Union of India & Others
• Case No: WP 23534/2025
• Court: Karnataka High Court
• Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi
• Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025
