The Hon. K. Kader Masthan

¶ 01 OPENING OF PUTTALAM–ELUVANKULAM–MANNAR ROAD FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

¶ 02 Hon. Speaker, thank you for permitting me under SO 27(2) to ask the Hon. Minister of Transport, Highways and Urban Development:

¶ 03 The Puttalam–Eluvankulam–Mannar road, designated B-379 by Extraordinary Gazette in 1989 and placed under the Road Development Authority, was used as a key arterial for North–South travel. After displacements in the 1990s, transport resumed in 2010, reducing Colombo–Jaffna travel distance by about 80 km.

¶ 04 Although a court case was filed in the Supreme Court to stop transport through this road claiming disturbance to wildlife, no ban was imposed by court, and transport took place up to June 2019. Later, transport was suspended citing damage to the bridge at the 37th kilometre, yet during temple and church festivals beyond that bridge, transport continued over it.

¶ 05 There are many roads through large forested areas—such as from Habarana Junction in four directions and the Ampara–Siyambalanduwa roads—where public transport operates without bans, with no harm to wildlife.

¶ 06 However, when the case was taken up last August, the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) stated it would not guarantee public transport through this road; as a result the petitioners withdrew the case and it was closed. Shockingly, with regard to decisions to completely close the road, Respondents 4 and 9 to 21 remained silent, deceiving and betraying the people who trusted them. These actions raise suspicion of a conspiracy.

¶ 07 I table documents and ask:

¶ 08 01. At the Puttalam District Special Coordinating Committee on 13.12.2025 chaired by the Hon. President, officials misled him by stating that there had been no public transport on this road after 1980 and that the case had been concluded with a judgment. Is this not clear?

¶ 09 02. This B-379, maintained by the RDA as part of the national road network, is a key link. Can the Department of Wildlife Conservation make the decision to ban public transport on this road?

¶ 10 03. In a case that lasted about 15 years, why did the DWC, a key national department, act in a way that ignores people’s needs on this public road used for centuries?

¶ 11 04. Without a court judgment, the case was closed based on DWC’s position. Considering the future development of this vast region and transport needs of hundreds of thousands, can steps be taken to reopen this road for public use?

¶ 12 I table the journal entry of 17.09.2023 from the case and request it be included in the Hansard. Therefore, I ask the Hon. Minister to take prompt action to reopen this long-used road for the public.

¶ 13 - Placed in the Library.