Third petition filed in HC opposing proposed jetty project at Radio Club
The petition, filed on June 9 by Shabnam Minwalla, an author and journalist, said that the construction of the jetty and terminal facilities would have a negative impact on the area and cause grave harm to local residents. She said that the project was not only illegal, but violated the constitutional rights of local residents, and should not be permitted. The petition challenged the construction of the jetty which will allegedly decongest the Gateway of India.
On the other hand, an affidavit filed by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) on June 7 claimed that the petitioners have ignored the larger public interest and are opposing the project based on their perceived personal inconvenience. The project seeks to address a long-standing need for a safe, modern, and well-equipped jetty facility that would improve connectivity between the mainland and other areas including, Navi Mumbai, Mandwa or Alibaug, Elephanta Island, etc and decongest the existing jetties at the Gateway of India monument.
Stating that the existing jetty facilities are inadequate, the MMB said that the new project will not only improve connectivity and cater to the increased demand for water transport services from the mainland to other areas but will also decongest the crowd and road traffic at the Gateway of India monument.
The MMB said that the petitions filed by the residents have failed to establish how this development will cause them any direct legal harm or violate their fundamental rights. The MMB added that after the navy refused to clear the proposal to construct a floating jetty pontoon at the Gateway of India, it suggested constructing a jetty near Radio club at Apollo Bunder. Following that, the MMB examined other locations too before proposing the passenger jetty with additional facilities near Radio Club.
Minwalla's petition highlighted that the project had not been cleared under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, and added that approval of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019 by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) was invalid.
The petition said that this new project would put more load on the already crumbling infrastructure in the area. 'The project contemplates the operation of a large jetty with a capacity of 20 berths in the midst of a primarily residential and already congested area. It will increase congestion, traffic, noise, and pollution in the area,' it said.
The petition cited Supreme Court orders and said principles of sustainable development, the doctrine of public trust, and the precautionary principle, are part of the law and must be followed in matters of town planning and urban development. 'The project will diminish the grandeur and visual spectacle of the Gateway of India and Taj Mahal Hotel in particular, and the Apollo Bunder promenade and sea-facing structures in general,' it added.
Minwalla asked the Bombay high court to intervene and stop the construction of the project and put a hold on the permissions given to the project so far. The court is set to hear the matter along with the other two petitions on June 16.
Replying to the MMB, Melwyn Fernandes, a Thane based social activist, said, 'The whole world will not come and knock on the door of this court and have the capacity to fight with the present dictatorship government's infrastructure projects.'
Fernandes said that such projects were objectionable, unnecessary, and had not considered local citizens, Indian heritage, and environmental spaces. He added, 'Only a handful, the economically sound people can come to this court on behalf of 100% citizens of this country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
HC lists multiple flaws in Punjab's land pooling policy, explains reasons for stay
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has spelt out in detail why it stayed the Punjab government's Land Pooling Policy, 2025, in its order passed on August 7 and released today. The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda listed a series of legal and procedural shortcomings — from the absence of environmental and social impact studies to the lack of timelines, grievance redressal and budgetary clarity. Policy 'notified in haste' The court said it was 'prima facie… of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste' without addressing key concerns. These included Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), fixed timelines for execution, and a grievance redressal mechanism — all of which, it said, 'should have been addressed at the very outset… before its notification.' No impact assessments before large-scale land takeover The Bench noted that the State planned to 'take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land' without first conducting SIA or EIA, despite Supreme Court directives that environmental studies must precede urban development. It cited Resident's Welfare Association vs UT of Chandigarh (2023), in which the apex court had urged governments to strike 'a proper balance… between sustainable development and environmental protection' and to make EIA studies mandatory before permitting urban expansion. Compulsory acquisition built into 'voluntary' scheme While the government maintained the policy was 'purely voluntary', the court pointed to Clause 6 of the May 14 notification, which allowed land not offered under the pooling scheme to be acquired compulsorily under the 2013 land acquisition law. This, it held, brought the policy within the definition of a 'project' under the Act, triggering the requirement for impact studies and other safeguards. No provision for the landless The order flagged the absence of any rehabilitation plan for landless labourers, artisans, MGNREGA workers and others dependent on the targeted land. 'Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those… dependent on the land,' it observed. The Bench also reminded that acquisition of multi-cropped land was barred under the 2013 law, except in exceptional circumstances. No timelines, no grievance mechanism The court said there were no prescribed timelines for key stages — voluntary participation, taking possession, starting or completing development, delivering developed land to owners, or paying subsistence allowances. It also found no grievance redressal framework or penalty provisions for delays and non-delivery. Budgetary gap Noting that the Amicus Curiae had estimated development costs at ₹1.25 crore per acre — about ₹10,000 crore for Ludhiana district alone — the Bench recorded that the State's counsel had 'no instructions' on whether any budgetary provision had been made. Past delays under pooling policies The judges referred to earlier instances where landowners surrendered plots under previous pooling schemes but waited years without receiving the promised developed land. In one case from Mohali, they noted, 'developed plots have not been allotted even after ten years' and no development had started in the concerned sectors. Fertile farmland at stake Calling the land 'amongst the most fertile in the State of Punjab', the court said the acquisition could 'impact the social milieu' and emphasised the need for careful evaluation before proceeding. Stay to prevent creation of rights The policy notified on May 14 and June 4, and amended on July 25, was stayed 'lest any rights are created', with the matter to be taken up again on September 10. The State has been asked to address all concerns and complete its reply before that date.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Punjab and Haryana High Court flags gaps in Punjab's Land pooling policy; says notified in ‘haste'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the Punjab government's controversial Land Pooling Policy-2025 prima facie appears to have been notified in 'haste' and that all concerns — including social and environmental impact assessments, timelines and a grievance redress mechanism — should have been addressed in the policy before its notification. These observations were made in a detailed order in connection with a writ petition challenging the policy. On August 7, the court granted an interim stay on its implementation and gave the State four weeks to respond to the concerns. The next hearing is scheduled for September 10. 'The State proposes to take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land in the entire State of Punjab for carrying out its proposed development work, without carrying out any Social Impact Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment study, although a stand is taken that the assessment would be carried out later when they have definite information about the number of land owners who have opted for the scheme,' the court noted. It added, 'It has been held by the Supreme Court in several cases that before permitting urban development, the State ought to carry out an environmental impact assessment.' The Bench also pointed out that the policy prescribes no timelines and provides no mechanism to address grievances of affected persons. 'Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those landless labourers, artisans and others who are dependent on the land,' it said. 'It has also been submitted before this Court that the State's statutory bodies shall themselves develop the land, but no budgetary provisions appear to have been made, nor anything has been put forth before this Court to indicate that the State has adequate resources to finance the development project under the policy,' the order stated. The Aam Aadmi Party government had notified the Land Pooling Policy-2025 on June 4. According to the government, the policy aims to create well-planned urban estates to meet the needs of a growing population by consolidating fragmented land parcels and ensuring equitable, sustainable development. Since its launch, several farmer bodies and political parties have been protesting, demanding its withdrawal.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Govt promises inquiry, says won't permit coal handling at Xelvona jetty
Porvorim: Chief minister Pramod Sawant on Friday said govt will not give any permission to handle coal at the Xelvona jetty, Curchorem. Environment minister Aleixo Sequeira said they have sought clarification from the company on what type of cargo would be handled at the jetty. Sequeira said that state expert appraisal committee (SEAC) will reject their application and withdraw permission if the information provided by the project proponent is unsatisfactory. Sequeira stated that the EIA report has flaws, the panchayat has complained, and govt has sought a clarification. Curchorem MLA Nilesh Cabral demanded that the NOC and permission for the jetty be withdrawn. He added that govt must take the panchayat and locals into consideration before allowing any development in his constituency. Sequeira said that govt is sensitive to the demands of the people who have said that they don't want this project, and requested some time to examine the issues. 'An appropriate decision will be taken. We have found that there is no road to the jetty. We will genuinely look at it. Give us some time, and we will resolve the issue,' Sequeira said. Cabral stated that Aditya Environmental Services Pvt Ltd has given all reports concerning North Goa, while the site is in South Goa. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Costco Shoppers Confirm: This Wrinkle Cream Is 100% Worth It Top Beauty Picks Learn More Undo 'My allegation is that Aditya Environmental Services Pvt Ltd is a fraudulent company, and the EIA submitted by a fraudulent company will not be entertained,' Cabral said. Sequeira mentioned that as far as GCZMA permission is concerned, it was given during his tenure, and the permission was granted as it is well within their rights. 'As soon as queries are replied to within 15 days, we will definitely act,' Sequeira said. Cabral asked whether the minister will write to Union govt and report that this company is fraudulent. 'I assure you, we will definitely write and inform Union govt, but I don't know what action they will take,' Sequeira replied . Fatorda MLA Vijai Sardesai questioned how permission was granted without knowing the type of cargo. Opposition leader Yuri Alemao said that mangroves were cut without permission from the forest department for the project and questioned what action will be taken. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Raksha Bandhan wishes , messages and quotes !
