It has been revealed that Judge Narayan Prasad Poudel, who is currently in the Special Court in the Nalinchowk Heliport case, had ordered the construction of the heliport to proceed while he was in the High Court. It has been found that Poudel and another Judge Rajendra Kharel had given an opposing order in a writ filed by making eight people, including the Authority, as defendants in the dispute regarding the construction of the heliport. Whereas, in the case filed by the Authority in the Special Court, the Authority's charge sheet has challenged the interpretation of the High Court.
What you should know
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority filed a case in a special court on Wednesday against six people, including Civil Aviation Authority Director General Pradeep Adhikari, on charges of corruption in the construction of a heliport in Nalinchowk, Bhaktapur.
In the heliport construction case, a case was filed against Director General Adhikari, Manager Nal Bikram Thapa, Deputy Manager Samriddhi Shrestha, former Director Murari Bhandari, consultant Gurudatta Adhikari and owner of Abhiyantra Consulting, which was awarded the construction contract, Bijay Thapa.
Among the cases filed, Adhikari and Bhandari were arrested by the CIAA and produced before the special court. Although a special hearing was prepared against the arrested on the same day the case was filed, the court postponed it to another day due to lack of time. The next day (Thursday) was a public holiday, so both of them remained in the CIAA's custody.
On Friday, a hearing was scheduled in a bench comprising Justices Narayan Prasad Poudel, Hemanta Rawal and Vidur Koirala. However, it was revealed that the bench including Judge Poudel, who is currently in the special court in the dispute related to the construction of the Nalinchok heliport, had ordered the construction of the heliport from the Patan High Court. After that, Poudel left the bench without sitting in the closed debate. The Authority administration sent both the defendants to the custody of the Authority to be present on Sunday.
After that, when examining the order issued by the High Court regarding the construction of the Nalinchok heliport, it was found that the bench of Rajendra Kharel and Poudel from the High Court had issued an order against the writ filed by 8 people including the Authority as defendants in the dispute related to the construction of the heliport. While in the case filed by the Authority in the special court on Wednesday, the claim of the High Court has been challenged by the Authority's charge sheet.
It was also found that the High Court's order had passed a 'disputed order' stating that 'it is not mandatory to conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA) while constructing the heliport'. However, the Authority has demanded a mandatory EIA based on the provisions of the Civil Aviation Authority Act. In a case filed by the Authority, which has named six people, including the Director General of the Authority, as defendants, the Authority has demanded that the construction of the airport without an EIA be considered an ‘illegal and corrupt offense’ and punished.
Section 6 (a) of the Civil Aviation Authority Act-2053 states that ‘prior approval of the Government of Nepal should be obtained while constructing, reconstructing, developing, expanding and maintaining an airport’. Similarly, the same point states that ‘prior approval of the concerned body should be obtained while constructing, reconstructing, developing and expanding an airport after conducting an environmental impact assessment’.
The Patan High Court had issued a short-term order on 29 Chaitra in favor of the writ petition filed by Surya Bahadur Khatri, Rajendra Khatri, Dwarika Karki, Umesh Khatri, Diwas Basnet, and Shree Krishna Khatri on behalf of the locals of Suryasabinayak Municipality-9 and 10, making the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Civil Aviation, the Civil Aviation Authority, and the Aerodrome Engineering Department of the Authority, including 8 other bodies, as respondents, saying that it was necessary to hold discussions with both sides.
The charge sheet filed by the Authority states that the Authority invited bids for the construction of the heliport on 30 Baisakh 2080 without conducting an EIA and awarded the contract to the project in collusion. Similarly, the charge sheet states that not only irregularities were committed in the construction of the heliport, but also the physical infrastructure and security management related to aviation safety were ignored before the heliport was operated. The Authority had awarded the contract to complete the work on 20 Jestha 2080.
The local government did not challenge the bid and agreement in the writ petition filed, filed the writ petition 9 months after the construction work had progressed, and said that the matter of compensation could be addressed when the final order is made. On 5 Baisakh 2080, the higher court issued another order not to continue the short-term interim order. After receiving responses from the opposing parties in the writ petition, on 31 Jestha 2080, a bench of Justice Rajendra Kharel and another judge Poudel, who is currently on special duty, found that the order should not be issued as per the petitioner's demand. However, the Authority Act includes a provision that an EIA must be carried out when constructing an airport.
Similarly, it has also been mentioned that the relevant body must obtain approval from the Government of Nepal when constructing an airport. However, it has been found that the order issued by the bench including Poudel from above ignored these provisions and ordered that the construction work was legal and could not be stopped. Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act 2076 states that 'the proposer shall prepare an environmental study report and submit it to the relevant body for approval'.
Under the same act, Rule 3 of the Regulation 2077 states that ‘a brief environmental study shall be conducted for the purpose of Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, a preliminary environmental study shall be conducted in Schedule 2, and an environmental impact assessment shall be conducted in Schedule 3’. However, the High Court has explained that ‘it is appropriate to consider the construction of the heliport in connection with the tourism sector rather than with the construction of housing, buildings, settlements and urban development areas’. Whereas, the Authority Act has clearly stated that the construction of the heliport should be considered as a part of the airport construction. However, it has been found that the court has ignored this and issued the order.
‘Since it seems that the construction of the heliport is appropriate to consider the construction of the heliport in connection with the tourism sector rather than with the housing, buildings, settlements and urban development areas, it does not appear that an environmental impact assessment should be carried out as a project under the housing, buildings, settlements and urban development areas.’ The order from the High Court states that. However, the Authority itself had built a heliport in Nalinchowk as a major project to reduce the pressure of helicopters from Tribhuvan Airport and built a structure to transfer it from Tribhuvan Airport to Nalinchowk. However, the Authority's efforts to exploit legal loopholes to get rid of irregularities and illegal processes in the construction have also been helped by the order of the higher authorities.
However, in the case filed by the Authority in the special court, the defendants have been accused of not only violating the law but also of irregularities and corruption by constructing the heliport without taking the approval of the Government of Nepal and without conducting an EIA.
The CIAA has filed a case against the defendants, alleging that the heliport was built on 32 ropanis without an environmental impact assessment, that it could affect three to four hundred households, that it was built without listening to the voices of the locals, that it was operated in a hurry without flight safety infrastructure, that it was not assessed for flight safety, that it was difficult for helicopters to fly with full load from Nalinchowk, that it was built without proper management of high-voltage power transmission lines in the heliport area, that it ignored the suggestions given by 47 pilots of various helicopter companies, that it did not even take approval from the Council of Ministers while proceeding with the construction and reconstruction work, that the then Director General Rajkumar Chhetri had said that it should be carried out only if it was appropriate according to the law, that Pradeep Adhikari, who had become the Director General, had the work carried out by violating the rules, that the work was done by consultants and companies with no experience in heliport construction, and that the defendants were sentenced to 10 to 14 years in prison, that each of them was fined according to the amount, and that the embezzled amount should be recovered. Of these, Adhikari and Bhandari, who are currently in the custody of the CIAA, are preparing to be produced before a special court on Sunday.
