• Home
• /
• UAE

Destination disaster?

DUBAI - There’s blood on the runway and there could be blood on their hands.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Airports Authority of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Karnataka state government are to blame, according to environment groups, who have consistently opposed the airport’s expansion plans since 1997.

Warnings about the second strip at Mangalore airport went unheeded for 13 years.

Now, the worst has happened and 159 innocent fliers have paid with 
their lives.

Arthur J. Pereira of the Environment Support Group tried hard to mask the woe in his voice, while speaking to 
Khaleej Times from India.

His group and the Vimana Nildhana Vistarana Virodhi Samithi, (Local Communities Alliance against Airport Expansion) had mounted a legal challenge by launching several Public Interest Litigations (PIL) against business and political lobbies, who were pressing for a second runway at the current site.

Years of legal battle failed and he sounded downcast: “My fears have come true...so many lives lost 
for what?”

But these fears were thrown out by the Karnataka High Court as early as 1997, in 2002 and also by the country’s Supreme Court in 2003.

The Airports Authority of India, in its affidavit to the High Court court, had said: “It is submitted that as regards the apprehensions of the petitioner that the length and width of the runway is insufficient for a plane making an emergency landing, the same is without 
any basis.”

The airport expansion was to accommodate wide bodied aircraft.

Environmental and people’s groups repeatedly informed authorities that the proposal did not adhere to standards prescribed for runway design as laid down by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, National Building Code of India and Ministry of Civil Aviation. The plateau-like terrain on which the strip was sitting also posed problems.

In their appeals, the environment groups contended that the airport did not have minimum safeguards for emergency situations — particularly during landings and takeoffs. Another point raised was the wooded valley beyond the runway would make it difficult to lay emergency roads within a kilometre on all sides of the airport as required.

“There were legitimate safety and environmental concerns which we were trying to raise, sadly no one cared to listen,” said Pereira.

Alternative sites existed for a new airport site, according to the activist, but no wanted to look farther than Bajpe where the present airport is located. He mentioned Padubidri, between Mangalore and Udupi, as an option.

Environmentalists alleged the authorities continued to expand the airport yielding to pressures from business, real estate and hotel lobbies. Pereira declined to name them. “It doesn’t matter. It won’t change anything now.”

He alleged the airports authority did not even conduct a proper feasibility study. “They said such a critical information detail would only be prepared after the land was acquired for the airport.” Even if a feasibility study was conducted (which didn’t happen), the campaign already looked like a lost cause.

A second public interest case also met its end at the Karnataka High Court on May 27, 2002. “Learned Counsel has not been able to show how the construction of second runway and Terminal Tower in Mangalore Airport will be against the public interest,” the court ruled.

In desperation, the appellants approached the country’s apex court, which said: “We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. We, however, clarify that in constructing the airport, the government shall comply with all applicable laws and also with environmental norms.”

Armed with the court ruling, the authorities began work on the second runway in 2004 and it was commissioned in May 2006. On June 8 last year, Mangalore airport got its ‘international’ tag.

But that’s small consolation for the victims of Air India Express Flight IX 812 and their families.

allan@khaleejtimes.com

• UAE