Village councils along NH-202 beyond the Kiphire-Meluri segment and the Kiphire District GBs’ Association have expressed strong opposition to the Short-Term Maintenance Contract (STMC) sanctioned for the highway, demanding that the long-pending two-laning project be taken up instead.
The Affected Landowners’ Union, NH-202 Kiphire-Meluri, had on August 18 issued a 15-day ultimatum opposing the STMC and demanding immediate commencement of the two-laning project along with payment of pending land compensation. The Union had warned of stronger democratic and public action if its demands were not addressed.
In a joint solidarity statement, representatives of Kiphire, Singrep, Okhe, Phelungre, Longthonger, Yingshukur and Lihtsaoung village councils said they fully endorsed the ultimatum issued by the Affected Landowners’ Union.
The village representatives said communities along the NH-202 corridor had witnessed repeated surveys, assurances and commitments for more than a decade. They stated that villagers had given consent and participated in multiple field surveys, including the latest in 2025, but the proposed permanent two-laning project had yet to materialise.
They described the STMC as a temporary measure that would not address their need for “safe, durable and reliable road infrastructure” and demanded that no short-term maintenance or temporary repair work be permitted on NH-202.
The village councils also demanded immediate commencement of the two-laning project and release of all pending land compensation to affected landowners. They warned that failure to address their demands would compel them to join the Affected Landowners’ Union in stronger democratic and public actions.
READ | Kiphire-Meluri landowners oppose NH-202 short-term maintenance contract, demand 2-laning
Meanwhile, the Kiphire District GBs’ Association submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, opposing the STMC and calling for intervention with higher authorities.
The Association said Kiphire District continued to face inadequate road connectivity while several other districts had benefited from two-lane and four-lane infrastructure. It described the situation as a matter of fairness and equitable development, stating that “every citizen is entitled to equal development, safe connectivity, and just treatment under the Constitution and the rule of law.”
The Association urged the authorities to review the decision and address the district’s long-term road infrastructure requirements in the interest of public welfare and balanced regional development.
