Hyderabad, June 24: Amid growing debate over the Telangana government’s decision to take over Hyderabad Metro Rail (HMR), several civil society organisations have alleged that the move amounts to a bailout of a private operator using public funds rather than a genuine public takeover.

Representatives of these organisations have questioned the government’s decision and demanded that the full takeover agreement be made public to ensure transparency.

D. Narasimha Reddy of Citizens for Better Public Transport questioned why the agreement has not been placed in the public domain. He also raised concerns over the proposed ₹13,527 crore refinancing loan from the Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC), and sought clarity on its financial implications.

“The government calls it a takeover, but it is effectively a bailout of a private company using public funds. Why is L&T exiting Metro operations? The Centre is aware of the implications of the IRFC loan, yet it has remained silent,” he said.

He further stated that the takeover appears to protect private investment while not sufficiently addressing commuter interests. He also called for a comprehensive cost-benefit, risk-benefit, and financial viability assessment of Phase I before proceeding with Phase II expansion.

Members of the Urban Development Forum also raised concerns over the viability of Phase II of the project, arguing that extending the Metro to the proposed Future City reflects misplaced priorities and may offer limited benefits to commuters.

Forum member M. Srinivas criticised the state government for what he described as a lack of transparency in the takeover process. He also questioned the financial justification for the takeover, stating that claims of losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic remain debatable.

He noted that the concessionaire had originally planned around 18 million square feet of commercial development to support fare revenue, but had completed only about 2 million square feet so far.

“Who is responsible for the failure of this business model?” he asked.

Srinivas also questioned the Centre’s condition that Phase I must be taken over by the state before approval for Phase II is granted. He said the issue ultimately revolves around nearly 300 acres of prime land allotted for commercial development under the project.

He further sought clarity on the appointment of SBICAPS as the transaction consultant, and the status of earlier advisory work conducted by IDBI.

Key Demands Raised

• Publication of a CAG-audited financial statement for Phase I
• Disclosure of full terms of the ₹13,527 crore IRFC refinancing agreement, including cost liability
• Public release of Phase II demand studies, ridership projections, and viability reports before central approval
• Public consultations along all seven proposed Phase II corridors
• Disclosure of revenue-sharing arrangements and commercial land development income