Mohan Kuthar
Daijiworld Media Network – Mangaluru (EP)

Mangaluru, Jul 25: People residing in Pandith House Sri Rajarajeshwari first cross road at Ullal are aggrieved by the fact that the municipal administration, which had invited tenders for their road had got concreting done for another road. Though funds were released for the development of their road, which is in a wretched condition since long, the work was never taken up as hoped there. The people have now been cursingUllal city municipal council for making them to suffer the ordeal of having to use the same road that continues to be in a horrible state.

The people here had submitted petitions seeking concreting of their road to all the people's representatives. An amount of Rs five lac rupees was released for this work by the then Ullal Municipal council as a result of prolonged effort. Tender was also called. However the concreting work was conducted for a small road nearby. By the time the matter came to the notice of the people, the work had been completed.

The locals have complained that the concreting of the other road that is smaller, was undertaken instead of their road, as the concerned were aware that they could not pocket hefty profit if concreting was done for the road for which the tendering process had already been completed.

Rajarajeshwari second cross road is also in shambles and it is very difficult to ride two-wheelers, auto rickhaws or four wheelers on this road. Auto rickshaws carrying school children have met with accidents several times when moving on this road.
Vehicles refuse to come to this road even when somebody needs urgent medical attention here, the locals complain. At a time hen even minor roads are getting concreted, for some strange reason, this road has not been chosen for concreting work.

Unwanted weeds have grown on the other side of this road and it is difficult to even walk on this stretch of the road. Though the growth of weeds, bushes and plants were removed by the municipal council two days ago, those is the likelihood of them growing again soon as they have not been cleared in a proper manner.

Bharathi, local councillor, said that misunderstanding has arisen by the fact that the tender publication in the papers had wrongly mentioned the specified road as first cross road instead of second cross. She said that the tender was meant for second cross road, and it was taken on priority, adding that in course of time, grant for concreting would be sanctioned for the first cross road too. However, a local, Divya Rajesh, counters this claim by saying that the information got under right to information act had clearly stated that grant was sanctioned for the first cross. She feels that the residents of the first cross have faced grave injustice from the city council because of the above diversion of funds.