HC dismisses pleas against Bal Thackeray memorial

Hindustan Times

4 days ago

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed several petitions challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government to set up a memorial to Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray on the site of the old Mayor's bungalow at Shivaji Park, Dadar. The government had decided to erect a memorial – the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Memorial – in honour of Thackeray in view of his contributions to the political landscape of the state, particularly in Mumbai. (Kunal Patil/HT Photo)
The government had decided to erect a memorial – the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Memorial – in honour of Thackeray in view of his contributions to the political landscape of the state, particularly in Mumbai. Accordingly, a committee was set up in December 2014 to scout for land for the memorial, generate funds and make recommendations for the memorial.
In May 2015, the committee submitted it had considered eight different sites and decided that the Mayor's bungalow was the most suitable place for the memorial. Although the land would continue to be owned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, it would be leased to a public trust set up to build and oversee the memorial for a period of 30 years, on payment of a nominal rent of ₹ 1 per year.
The government issued a resolution on September 27, 2016, approving the recommendations. Subsequently, the resolution was challenged and amendments were carried out. The plot, reserved for the Mayor's bungalow, fell under the Green Zone in the Development Control Regulations of 1991. It was re-zoned as 'residential use' under the Development Plan 2034.
Challenging these decisions were several petitions filed in the Bombay High Court in 2017, highlighting the allocation of a ₹ 100-crore budget for the memorial. They contended that the money could have been used for other, important, purposes.
On re-zoning the land from 'Green Zone' to 'Residential Zone' without prior public notification or consultation, senior advocate Sunip Sen, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the change of use of the Mayor's bungalow had been effected in gross violation of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). He further stated that there had been an illegal conversion of the municipal gymkhana (municipal house), a public amenity and historically accessible to public use, which could not be reserved for the residence of the Mayor.
Senior advocate Dr Uday Warunjikar, representing another petitioner, submitted that the entire decision-making process for the memorial at the Mayor's bungalow 'suffered from gross arbitrariness and irrationality'. 'The site chosen for the memorial as well as the manner in which the trust had been formed was 'clearly illegal'. 'Therefore, the actions taken by the authorities for setting up the memorial at the site should be set aside,' he added.
Opposing the court's intervention, additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan contended that the establishment of the memorial was in the realm of policy decision. She told the court that the provisions of the MRTP Act had been observed while making amendments to the Development Plan. 'The decision to set up the memorial has been taken in the interest of a larger section of the society considering the contribution of late Balasaheb Thackeray during his lifetime,' she stated.
Upholding the state's decision, the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said that the re-zoning of the land failed to reflect any procedural impropriety. 'Any piece of land in the city of Mumbai is bound to be valuable and therefore it is not for this court to decide which land needs to be chosen for setting up of the memorial,' the court stated.
It observed that the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) had cleared the project to proceed with the usage of the land, which fell under the CRZ-II zone. Therefore, there is no violation of environmental norms in setting up the memorial, the court ruled.
The bench highlighted that work on the memorial was virtually complete, and there had been no disturbance to the heritage significance of the bungalow. 'This could be yet another reason for this court not to interfere in the decisions and actions,' the bench added.
Since it found no grounds to challenge the state's decision and actions with regard to the memorial, the court dismissed the petitions.