Bombay High Court upholds Gateway jetty project, dismisses petitions citing environmental concerns
Dismissing the petitions, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that the project was lawfully cleared by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) under the 2019 CRZ notification.
'The pursuit of development is not an affront to the environment when it walks the careful path of sustainability, guarded by regulations and reason. After traversing the entire expanse of material on record, expert opinions, statutory clearances and upon weighing the scales between the progress and preservation and taking into account the fact that the project stands fortified by statutory clearance, we uphold the validity of the decision of MMB and the State Government in constructing the project i.e. 'Passenger Jetty and Terminal Facilities' in sea face/promenade abutting the Gateway of India near the Radio Club,' the court observed.
The Bench further said that they have already assigned reasons in the preceding paragraphs to record a conclusion that the dominant purpose of the project is to provide facilities to the passengers for embarkation and disembarkation.
The other facilities like amphitheatre and restaurant/cafe are only ancillary to the project. Therefore, the same has to be used only to make passenger jetty functional, the Bench said.
'We are also conscious of the fact that there is no sewage treatment plant envisaged in the project. The functioning of the facilities should not be detrimental to the environment,' the Bench observed and issued directions:
The project proponent i.e. MMB shall ensure that the amphitheatre shall only be used as a sitting area by the passengers waiting to board the jetty and shall not be used as a place of entertainment in any manner.
The MMB shall further ensure that the proposed restaurant/cafe shall be used only to provide water and packed food products to the passengers and shall not be used for providing a dining facility.
The MMB shall also ensure that after completion of the project at the Gateway of India, the existing jetties shall be discontinued in a phased manner, as directed by the Indian Navy, the Bench said and disposed of the petitions.
The verdict came in response to three writ petitions filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association, Dr. Laura D'Souza and others, and Shabnam Minwalla and others, who raised strong objections against the project on environmental, heritage, and procedural grounds.
The proposed project involves the construction of a terminal platform of 80x80 metres with facilities such as a VIP lounge, food court, cafe, and a parking space for 150 cars. A 'tennis racquet-shaped' jetty extending 570 metres into the sea and a width of 203 metres with 10 boarding platforms, as well as an open-air amphitheatre on stilts, forms the core of the design. The total built-up area is over 25,116 sq. metres.
Petitioners claimed the project falls in the ecologically sensitive CRZ-I and CRZ-IV zones and would adversely impact the environment, marine ecology, and heritage aesthetics of the area.
The petitioners sought to quash and set aside the March 2, 2023, order passed by the MCZMA granting clearance to the project. They also sought to quash and set aside the January 28, 2025, 'No Objection Certificate' by the Mumbai Traffic Police and a February 7, 2025, 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), to the project.
Senior advocates Aspi Chinoy, Sunip Sen, and Shiraz Rustomjee, representing the petitioners, argued that the project was wrongly classified as a 'standalone jetty' to bypass environmental scrutiny. They contended that in a September 2000 interim report submitted by Consulting Engineers, it was found that Off Arthur Bunder Road, South of Sassoon Dock, Nariman Point, Cuffee Parade and Trombay were not suitable and feasible and recommended the location of the proposed project at Ferry Wharf as a more appropriate location, however, the MMB disagreed with the findings of the report and said the Consulting Engineers lack professional approach. The State government too did not agree to the report, and on November 9, 2001, it said that the terminal at the Gateway of India is still needed and the project cannot be set up at Ferry Wharf alone.
The petitioners argued, 'The decision of the State Government and the MMB to construct the project is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary and violative of rights of the members of the petitioner association, which are guaranteed to them under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the project in question will excessively and needlessly affect the environment.'
'The project has a built-up area of 25116 sq. metres and will envelope a sea area of approximately 15 acres. It is urged that the aforesaid project is located in ecologically sensitive CRZ-I and CRZ-IV areas and therefore, it casts a heavy onus on the State Government and the MMB to justify the location of the project and the public interest involved therein. It is argued that the proposed design envelopes 12 acres of sea area with no additional facilities on the inner side of the proposed Jetty,' the petition read.
The petitioners contended that the Consulting Engineers had conducted a detailed study at the instance of MPT and the State Government concluded that the ferry wharf site is a suitable location for the construction of a passenger jetty. 'Without conducting any further expert study/report, the MMB has proceeded to locate the project in the sea off the road near Radio Club,' the petitioners argued.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf for MMB submitted that the petitioners are neither aggrieved by the location of the project nor by the concept of the project. 'The project seeks to address an urgent need for a safe, modern and properly equipped jetty facility for improving connectivity between the mainland and other areas, including Navi Mumbai, Mandwa (Alibaug) and Elephanta Island, etc. and to decongest the passenger and road traffic right next to the iconic Gateway of India monument.'
Mr. Saraf further argued that there are five operational antiquated jetties which have been in use for almost a century and approximately 30 to 35 lakh passengers travel every year through the aforesaid jetties. 'The existing facilities are unable to handle the passenger traffic and provide proper berthing for ferries and yachts.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
15 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Nod for Taj Lands End expansion
Mumbai: Two new restaurants will be added to the Taj Lands End Hotel in Bandra West as the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), at its meeting held in July, approved the hotel's expansion plan. According to the minutes of the MCZMA meeting, a pool coffee shop/ restaurant and a restaurant with retractable roof will be added on the existing porch terrace on the third floor (Raju Shinde/ HT Photo) According to the minutes of the MCZMA meeting, a pool coffee shop/ restaurant and a restaurant with retractable roof will be added on the existing porch terrace on the third floor. A structure housing an existing restaurant will be extended at the podium level to accommodate a restaurant on the eastern side. Another restaurant with a retractable roof made of steel, glass and glazed panels will come up on the western side above the entrance porch terrace. Both restaurants will offer sea views, said sources. The expansion seeks to make use of additional floor space index (FSI) that became available owing to changes in Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules in 2019. Several property owners have sought to use the additional FSI since, including actor Shah Rukh Khan, whose bungalow, Mannat, will get two additional floors. The total plot area of Taj Lands End is 37,611.30 square metres, out of which 10,602.90 square metres has already been handed over to the civic body towards reservation for a garden and the existing fort and another 3,418.10 square metres towards road setback area as per the development plan, the minutes said. A spokesperson of the Tata group-led Indian Hotels Company Limited, which owns the Taj Lands End and the Taj Bandstand next to it, said they had submitted an application for revised planning of areas within Taj Lands End as per prevailing norms. 'The application is under review with authorities concerned,' he said. Currently, reconstruction work is underway on the plot which housed Hotel Searock, which was damaged in the 1993 bomb blasts. The bhoomipoojan was done earlier this year by chief minister Devendra Fadnavis.
India Today
a day ago
- India Today
Bombay High Court raps auto drivers, refuses to entertain plea against bike taxis
In a strong rebuke to auto-rickshaw drivers seeking to curb bike taxi operations in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition that alleged illegal plying of app-based bike taxis using private vehicles. The court also criticised the city's traditional auto and taxi services, remarking that they often operate like a "cartel."A bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale came down heavily on four Mumbai auto-rickshaw drivers, who had filed a petition urging the court to enforce restrictions against bike taxis operated by aggregators like Rapido. The petitioners alleged that the bike taxis were using white number plates — designated for private vehicles — instead of the required yellow-and-black transport plates, and were thus operating illegally, affecting their the court declined to intervene, observing that the petition appeared aimed at creating a monopoly. 'You want to indirectly take an order and put pressure on them (bike services). There cannot be a monopoly. If a single person has to travel, then it is better to take a bike than an auto or taxi,' the bench stated. The state government had recently notified the Maharashtra Bike-Taxi Rules, 2025, on July 4, paving the way for regulated operations of app-based bike taxis, subject to licensing, safety, and operational the petitioners claimed they were merely seeking enforcement of the rules against unlicensed vehicles, the bench was unpersuaded. 'Everyone has seen the high-handedness of autorickshaw and taxi drivers. That is why people prefer alternatives. Try catching a rickshaw during monsoon,' the bench the judges pointed out the irony in the petitioners' argument about rule enforcement. 'This will stop only when you stop refusing to take people. We have seen on the streets how taxi and rickshaw drivers treat customers — their language, tone, and high-handedness. Each one of us has faced this.'Criticising the perceived entitlement of traditional transport operators, the bench added, 'Tomorrow you will say even the metro should not start. It is because of the high-handedness of the 'kali peelis' (local way of calling taxis in Mumbai) that Ola and Uber started picking up.'The court also called out the practice of rickshaw drivers allegedly forming informal cartels — refusing passengers and preventing others from taking them with the bench indicating it would dismiss the petition, the petitioners chose to withdraw it.- EndsMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business Standard
Green regulators can seek bank guarantees from polluters: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that environmental regulators, such as the Pollution Control Boards, can impose environmental compensation and seek bank guarantees from polluting entities as part of their preventive measures against potential environmental damage. 'We hold that the environmental regulators, the Pollution Control Boards, can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of money or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts,' the Supreme Court said. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that such actions by State Boards are lawful and fall within their powers. However, the Bench stressed that this authority must be exercised fairly and transparently. 'While we hold that the Boards have the power to direct the payment of environmental damages, we make it clear that this power must always be guided by two overarching principles. First, that the power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner; and second, the process of exercising this power must be infused with transparency,' the judgment said. The court emphasized that such action must be distinguished from a penalty. 'There is a distinction between a direction for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage or as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage on the one hand; and a punitive action of fine or imprisonment for violations under Chapters VII of the Water Act and VI of the Air Act on the other hand.' The Bench also referred to the polluter pays principle in Indian environmental jurisprudence, stating that actual environmental degradation is not a prerequisite for demanding compensation. Instead, the potential for environmental harm is sufficient. 'The actual degradation of the environment is not a necessary condition for the application of the polluter pays principle, as long as the offending activities have the potential of degrading the environment," the judgment said. The Court also echoed the view taken by the National Green Tribunal in Swastik Ispat Pvt Ltd, where the tribunal had upheld the use of bank guarantees as a lawful method of securing environmental compliance. In the present case, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee had appealed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had held that it was not empowered to levy compensatory damages under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The High Court ruled that such action amounted to a penalty under Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts, and as such, the procedure for imposing and collecting compensatory damages outlined thereunder should be the only method available.
