The Supreme Court on Monday modified the Bombay High Court order and permitted L&T, the HCC-HDC joint venture, and others involved in the execution of the coastal road project to continue with the work, which has already commenced, but not to undertake any fresh work.
After the relief, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) immediately started work on certain sites in the city. Petitioners are now going to stay vigilant to ensure no new reclamation is done.
On April 23, the HC denied relief to HCC and L&T, who had filed their intervention applications in the public interest litigations opposing the project. The HC was informed that the companies were facing pecuniary loss, and when the monsoon arrives, the environment will get affected because the sea will get rough to carry out the work. However, the HC passed an interim order and directed the BMC to stop all work and maintain status quo till June 3.
On April 27, the BMC and the contractors filed a special leave petition in the apex court against the HC order.
On Monday, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta ruled in favour of the contractors. The Bench said, “This order will govern the parties till the High Court decides the matter”, and requested the HC to dispose of the matter on June 3 or any other date thereafter.
Mohan Machiwal, chief engineer, Mumbai Coastal Road in BMC, who was in Delhi for the hearing, said, “Status quo has been lifted. We have immediately started work at Amarsons gardens. The status quo was causing a loss of ₹10 crore per day to the public exchequer. Is the petitioner willing to pay that? We will resume work where we had already started.”
Another BMC official said in case the contractors claim compensation for the number of days lost in this process, which is called idle charges, the civic body should recover those from the protesters.
However, petitioner Shweta Wagh, based on whose PIL the HC had ordered status quo, said, “This order is disappointing. We will still have to be vigilant and prepare for the High Court hearing.”
Explaining her petition, Ms. Wagh said the project was started without the requisite clearances. “My PIL also challenges the 2015 CRZ amendment in the first place as it was bad in law. Essentially, we are challenging a road built on reclaimed land.”
She said the BMC’s contention that it is an essential project is misleading. “It is calling the reclamation for the road as an ‘exception’ citing its necessity. But when there is a whole parallel Metro infrastructure being built, how can you say this road is a necessity? And just for the sake of traffic, can we allow such ecological destruction that is irreversible? There are schedule I species of corals found in inter-tidal zone that is being reclaimed. Even their environment and social impact assessment reports underplay the impact. There is complete misrepresentation of facts and the environmental clearance was secured based on that,” Ms. Wagh said.
Environmentalist Zoru Bhathena, who has been campaigning against the coastal road, called the SC order fair. “In fact, in our case, the HC had initially allowed the contractors this opportunity (of continuing existing work without starting any new work) through a court commissioner, which they did not take up. That is when the court ordered status quo. The BMC itself has shown the status of reclamation in the apex court. Now, if the contractors do any new work, we will again bring it to the court’s notice.”
Dr. Nilesh Baxi, a resident of Napean Sea Road, who has been leading protests against the project, said the SC verdict means the interchange cannot be built at Tata Gardens as that will be a new reclamation. “This order has stalled that for a while. We are hoping for a positive judgement now. We believe that so much reclamation is not required. Also, the BMC had said that its cost per day is ₹2.3 crore. Now, on what basis is it saying ₹10 crore per day?” Residents of Napean Sea Road have been opposing the Coastal road for the damage it will cause to Tata Gardens.
Nilesh Patil, a third generation fisherman, has been fishing at Worli Koliwada for the last 15 years. He said, “The SC has told the contractors to only complete the work that has been started, but I am sure they (contractors) will undertake new work as well. Because this has happened before and it will happen again.” He also said, “Earlier when the HC had stayed the work, they were still carrying on with it. I had personally taken the HC order to them (contractors) but they said it does not apply to them and this needs to be given to the BMC. However, the BMC and the contractors both moved the SC separately.”
