Gateway jetty project: Residents file plea in SC
MUMBAI: A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to stay construction of a controversial jetty and terminal project at the iconic Gateway of India. The project, which allegedly threatens heritage structures, the marine environment, and public safety, is scheduled for a hearing in the apex court on May 27.
The petition has been filed by Laura D'Souza, president of the Cuffe Parade Residents' Association, through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP. It contests the Bombay High Court's orders dated May 7 and 8, which declined to grant interim relief to halt ongoing construction, demolition, or alteration activities related to the Passenger Jetty and Terminal Facilities.
According to the petitioners, the project impacts more than 2.1 lakh residents in the Colaba area. D'Souza argued that the High Court failed to consider the overwhelming public interest involved and the irreversible damage the construction could cause. 'The project commenced without prior public notification, consultation, or engagement with local stakeholders,' she said, criticising the court's observation that the petitioners had approached it at the last moment, despite knowing about the project earlier.
The plea also alleges that various approvals, No Objection Certificates (NOCs), and environmental assessment reports were granted without due diligence or adherence to regulatory procedures. It argues that many of these clearances are in violation of prevailing environmental, heritage, and coastal zone regulations.
The petition contends that the High Court erred in allowing the project to continue based solely on the government's assertion of its public importance. It states that the court failed to apply the well-established legal tests for granting interim relief—namely, a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm.
'The High Court's order does not reflect a proper appreciation of the irreversible impact this massive construction will have on heritage structures such as the Gateway of India and the surrounding coastal ecosystem,' the petition states. It further argues that the scale of the project—spanning over 15.5 acres of sea area—will drastically alter the character and safety of the Colaba coastline.
There is also mounting local opposition. Besides the Cuffe Parade Residents' Association, other objectors include the Bombay Presidency Radio Club, prominent business owners, regular visitors to the area, and elected representatives from both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. These stakeholders have urged that the project be shifted to Princess Dock, which has been identified in a feasibility report as a more suitable and less disruptive location.
Safety concerns are also central to the petition. It refers to the tragic incident on December 18, 2024, when an Indian Navy speedboat collided with the passenger ferry Neel Kamal near the Gateway of India, resulting in 15 fatalities. The collision occurred in the same waters where the new jetty is being constructed. The petition argues that increasing maritime traffic in this already congested zone could significantly raise the risk of future accidents.
'This project is being pushed forward under the guise of public benefit, but in reality, it serves the interests of a select few. If allowed to proceed, it will endanger lives, violate legal safeguards, and permanently damage one of Mumbai's most historic and environmentally sensitive zones,' said D'Souza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling boosts NRIs' right to reclaim property, clears eviction path for landowners
In a major relief to Non-Resident Indian property owners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court last month upheld an eviction order in favour of an NRI based in England, in a long-pending property dispute with her tenants in Amritsar. The judgment was delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain on May 3. Dismissing a clutch of petitions filed by tenants, Popular Shuttle Company and Amrik Singh, the High Court backed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, allowing Harbans Kaur to reclaim her property in East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar. The tenants had challenged the eviction on several grounds, including maintainability, partial eviction, and alleged misuse of procedural law. But the court rejected each contention, reinforcing that NRIs are entitled to reclaim property under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, provided they satisfy the ownership and bona fide need conditions. Harbans Kaur had filed for eviction on the grounds that she and her husband, who planned to retire from an engineering firm in the UK and start a Latha machine workshop, required the premises for personal and business use. The tenants, represented by Senior Advocate B R Mahajan and a legal team comprising Prateek Mahajan, Nikita Goel and Harita Dhanda, questioned whether Kaur could file a second petition after withdrawing an earlier one. They cited provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Order XXIII Rule 1), arguing that this barred the fresh eviction plea. But the court disagreed, citing settled law. 'Reliance placed by Mr Mahajan on Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is misconceived and cannot be accepted,' Justice Jain ruled. He noted that a Rent Controller, unlike a civil court, does not have the authority to refuse a fresh petition from the landlady. The court also held that Kaur's petition against multiple tenants was valid. 'Section 13-B does not restrict the right of a landlady to the number of tenants, but it restricts her right to seek eviction qua number of buildings,' the judge said. He referred to the Delhi High Court's ruling in Atma Ram Properties Pvt Ltd v. Prem Nath Motors Pvt Ltd to support the maintainability of a single petition involving common legal and factual questions. The tenants' argument of 'partial eviction' — claiming only parts of the property were lawfully rented — was also dismissed. The court backed the Rent Controller's factual findings that written rent agreements existed for specific portions, and oral tenancy claims for the rest could not be accepted. On the nature of use, the tenants argued that a non-residential property could not be reclaimed for residential needs. The court found this unconvincing. 'The landlady sought ejectment… pleading residential as well as non-residential need,' said Justice Jain, adding there was no legal bar on such dual-purpose use under the Act. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed all connected matters, reaffirming the eviction order. 'In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed,' the judge said. The ruling reaffirms the statutory right of NRIs to reclaim property for personal use, without being caught in prolonged litigation. Under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, an NRI landowner can seek eviction once during their lifetime, provided they have owned the property for at least five years and can prove genuine need.
Scroll.in
3 days ago
- Scroll.in
Maharashtra contractors warn of state-wide protest if Rs 80,000 crore dues not paid
An association of contractors working with Maharashtra government departments has warned of a state-wide protest if the authorities do not release dues of over Rs 80,000 crore by June 10, CNBC-TV18 reported on Thursday. The Maharashtra Contractors Association, which claims to represent about three lakh members in 35 districts of the state, plans to launch a mass awareness campaign and a large-scale protest if the government does not meet the deadline for payments. 'The government has chosen to remain silent, but we will not,' the association's president Milind Bhosale told CNBC-TV18. 'If needed, we will take this agitation to every corner of Maharashtra.' The association has claimed that payments to the tune of Rs 38,000 crore are pending from the state public works department, Rs 6,500 crore from the rural development department, Rs 12,000 crore from the water conservation and water resources department and Rs 4,217 crore from the urban development department. Bhosale said the association has filed a petition in the Bombay High Court against the rural development department, CNBC-TV18 reported. He added that if its demands are not met by June 10, it will file another petition against the public works department. 'We wrote to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis again a couple of days ago,' he told the channel. 'But still, there is no sign of us getting our money.' In February, the contractors had gone on strike for a week to protest the dues. They had alleged that the government had not paid them since July last year, although it was allocating money for initiatives like the Ladki Bahin Scheme for monthly payments to women, The Times of India reported. At the time, Maharashtra Public Works Department Minister Shivendraraje Bhosle said he had asked for Rs 10,000 crore to be released at the earliest for the contractors, according to The Indian Express. 'I have spoken to the chief minister and finance minister,' the minister had told the newspaper. 'Both are positive regarding the demands raised by contractors. The government is positive about our demand of Rs 10,000 crore to be released at the earliest.'
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Indian Express
Court accepts ACB closure report in Powai land ‘fraud'
ACCEPTING THE closure report filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), a special court has said that no criminal case is made out into allegations of a Rs 30,000-crore land fraud in Powai, clearing businessman Niranjan Hiranandani and others. The proceedings related to the allegations that in the Powai Area Development Scheme intended for affordable housing, losses were caused to the public exchequer by diverting the land for the construction of luxury apartments by developers, including Hiranandani. Special Judge S E Bangar on June 2 accepted the 29-page closure report filed by the ACB, while also rejecting a protest petition filed by activist Santosh Daundkar. 'There is no material worth the name to even create a suspicion indicative of any offence by the accused persons,' the court said. It also said that around 8,000 residents of the housing scheme have not filed any criminal complaints or supported the complainant, Daundkar, and ruled that he is neither a resident nor an investor in the scheme. Stating that the case was of a 'civil nature', the special court also said that proceedings before the Bombay High Court related to the housing scheme had been disposed of and in light of compliance done by the developers, nothing was brought on record to infer any criminal offence. The ACB began its probe into the allegations in 2012 but had filed a closure report in 2013, which was first rejected by the court in 2018 and a further probe was ordered. The ACB reinvestigated and again submitted a closure report in 2019, maintaining that no offence was found. The ACB said that the issues raised were that of policy and contractual violations and were not of criminal culpability. For development of the Powai area, a tripartite agreement was executed between the state of Maharashtra, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Hiranandani Developers Pvt Ltd on November 19, 1986, related to 232.32 acres of land. The agreement required development of 50 per cent flats each of 40 sq metres and 80 sq metres, and 15 per cent of the developed flats to be handed over to the state. It was alleged that instead of low-income affordable housing, unauthorised amalgamated luxury units were constructed, leading to commercial exploitation of land and violation of the terms of the agreement. The ACB, while seeking closure of the case, relied on orders by the high court, where separate proceedings were filed, referring to three Public Interest Litigations, which were disposed of in 2023. The ACB argued that the order settled the issue and no grievance remains. The high court had disposed of the PILs, observing that all contractual obligations under the 1986 agreement were fulfilled and compliance was made of its earlier interim orders, including directions for the construction of 2,661 flats of the agreed upon square metres and handing over of 256 flats to the government. Daundkar had claimed that the PILs addressed compliances with housing policy but criminal culpability remained. His plea seeking access to internal notings related to the scheme were rejected by the court stating that they were 'confidential'. 'There is no alleged breach of terms of the tripartite agreement, any other irregularities and illegal acts found to be committed by the accused/respondents,' the court said, putting an end to the long-pending proceedings.
