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
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC dismisses review plea and allows Motilal Nagar Redevelopment in Goregaon West
MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Friday dismissed a review plea and paved the way for the redevelopment of 141 acres of MHADA land in Goregaon West, called Motilal Nagar. MHADA recently appointed Adani Realty as the consultant and Development Agency (CDA) for the project. It is touted as the city's largest housing project. Motilal Nagar Vikas Samiti, a residents' group, filed the review petition seeking recall and quashing of the HC ruling dated March 6, 2025, by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre. The residents sought, as interim relief, a stay on MHADA and the developer awarded the contract from going ahead. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai By its March judgment, the HC allowed MHADA's 2021 application to ensure redevelopment gets done via private developers' bids and disposed of public interest litigation filed in 2013 seeking action against rampant illegal construction on the land. The society's three main contentions were that firstly, as a society, they can and ought to be allowed to self-develop the premises under the govt policy. Secondly, the society of residents can, under rule 33 (5) (2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), appoint a developer of their choice. Thirdly, any development undertaken by such society, with MHADA NOC, by appointing a developer, requires 51 percent consent of the members. The housing authority, through its senior counsel, said no new points were being raised and that the HC, after considering all aspects, recognised MHADA's rights under the law as the owner of the property to redevelop the premises through private developments by inviting bids. The counsel also contended that the society, in an affidavit, earlier said it wanted MHADA to do the development itself. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) said it floated bids and appointed Adani Realty as the CDA. The review plea before the same division bench challenged the appointment of the developer. The HC said a reasoned order will be made available later. By Friday's development in court, Motilal Nagar I, II, III redevelopment projects can proceed, said a MHADA lawyer. In 2018, MHADA said the estimated project cost was Rs 21,000 crore. The developer will bear all costs, including costs for transit and rehabilitation of eligible tenements, shops, slum dwellers, and other amenities. In 2013, Manjula Veeran and Tekchand Khanchandani filed two PILs before the HC seeking directions to MHADA and Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish the 'rampant unauthorised horizontal and vertical constructions'' at Motilal Nagar I, II, and III, Goregaon West, MHADA Colony, Mumbai. The colony originally housed 400 tenants, mostly row houses. In 2013, HC directed MHADA as the landowner to carry out a survey based on which to decide on the course of action. MHADA found over 3,600 unauthorised constructions, which it then sought to include in the redevelopment plan. The HC in March 2025 accepted the housing authority's stand to ensure rehabilitation through a bidding process. What MHADA envisages in its plan for Motilal Nagar Rehabilitation for both existing and commercial users. Building markets, shopping centres, offices, houses and workplaces, mixed-use buildings, cultural centres, clubs, public halls, recreational centres, schools, community centres, shelters for women and children, shelters for the old, healthcare and medical centres, hostels, and residential buildings for sale. In December 2021, TOI reported that only three construction firms, Adani, L&T, and Naman Developers , submitted bids to redevelop Motilal Nagar, touted as the city's largest housing project.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
HC junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹1 lakh cost
Mumbai, The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution on the procurement and supply of certain agricultural items, terming them 'totally baseless'. HC junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹ 1 lakh cost Finding no merit in the Public Interest Litigation and a writ petition filed against GR of March 12, 2024, the court also imposed a cost of one lakh on the petitioners. The pleas were dismissed by a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on July 22. As per the detailed order, made available on Friday, the bench ruled that the challenge to the government's decision was 'totally baseless and deserves rejection'. The court said it did not find any error in the GR concerning the procurement of five items under a special action plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds. 'Thus, no interference was warranted in the tender process implemented for procurement of the said items,' it said. The March 12, 2024, GR details the procurement and supply of five items – battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano D, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags – to farmers. 'The said petition is filed by an association of manufacturers of sprayers, who have no locus standi to challenge implementation of special action plan by the state government,' the bench said. The court said that to protect their private interest, manufacturers and traders cannot be permitted to challenge the broader scheme to facilitate the productivity enhancement of the listed crop. The petitioners had contended that the five items were removed from an earlier GR dated December 5, 2016, which allowed farm subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer scheme and were included in the new GR, which provides for their procurement through state agencies. The state agencies, including Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited, procured these items at 'exorbitant' rates, claimed the PIL. Senior advocate, Nikhil Sakhardande, who represented the petitioners, told the court that the DBT scheme was more beneficial to farmers, allowing them to purchase items at cheaper rates from local traders. The new system favoured large contractors, he argued. Appearing for the state government, senior advocate V R Dhond contended that the earlier GR operated under different objectives. He stated that the March 2024 GR was aimed at enhancing productivity and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseed crops, which he called a broader programme not limited to just product procurement. The HC accepted the state's arguments and said the two GRs operate in 'completely different and independent spheres' with distinct objectives. The petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up the two GRs which have no nexus with each other', it held. Further, the bench held that these 'baseless' petitions created hurdles in the effective implementation of the plan, aimed at giving impetus to the cultivation of specified crops and benefiting farmers. 'For this reason also, while dismissing the petitions, we are inclined to impose costs on the petitioners,' the court said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Scroll.in
a day ago
- Scroll.in
Prada's Kolhapuri sandal copies show that law alone can't protect India's cultural capital
Earlier this month, Italian fashion house Prada sparked an uproar in India when its newest collection at the Milan Fashion Week featured open-toe leather sandals that strongly resembled the iconic Kolhapuri chappal. Priced at Rs 1.2 lakh per pair, nearly 300 times their value in Kolhapur, these sandals were showcased by Prada without any mention of their cultural origins or the communities in the subcontinent that have sustained the industry around them. Since 2019, the Kolhapuri chappal has had geographical indication status – meaning that it is protected by an intellectual property rights regime that acknowledges that goods originating from a specific region possess a reputation and distinctive qualities or characteristics inherently linked to that location. A GI tag is a legal stamp that protects the cultural and economic identity of products from a certain place, such as champagne from France or Darjeeling tea from India. The Prada incident put the focus on the limitations of India's GI regime in enforcing the protection of its heritage when it was co-opted on the global stage. For decades, India's intellectual property trajectory in the cultural sector has been one of seeking recognition: mapping traditional knowledge systems, celebrating heritage crafts and filing for geographical indications with the hope that a legal tag would be enough to protect them. But recognition is not the same as enforcement. GI status legally identifies a product as originating from a specific region, and grants exclusive rights to local artisans, manufacturers, or registered associations in that region to use its name. It stops others from misusing the region-based name and lets authentic producers benefit from both cultural identity and direct income. The backlash in India against Prada's sandals accused the firm of cultural appropriation and theft of intellectual property. Yet, legally, the anger went nowhere. A public interest litigation before the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against Prada was dismissed, largely on procedural grounds: the petitioners were not the registered GI proprietors and public interest was not adequately demonstrated. This signals the limitations of enforcing India's GI regime. Until now, GI registration has been celebrated as an end in itself, as a badge of honour that marks cultural uniqueness. But what happens when that uniqueness is exploited abroad, stripped of context and sold back to the world as high fashion? The case of the Kolhapuri chappal may be the first real test of how GI protection needs to evolve beyond domestic pride. GI tags In India, GIs are governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into force in 2003 following India's commitments under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement. GI protection allows local artisans, manufacturers, and registered associations to register traditional products and prevent others from using the GI name without authorisation. Since the inception of the GI regime, over 400 Indian products have been registered: from Banarasi and Pochampally ikat saris and Mysore silk, to Nagaland's Naga mircha chilli, Kullu shawls and Aranmula Kannadi metal mirrors from Kerala. These registrations confer exclusive rights to artisans, manufacturers, artisans and officially recognised producer associations based in those regions to produce, market, and financially benefit from the GI-labelled goods. For instance, Basmati rice, one of India's leading GI products, generated export earnings of approximately Rs 38,000 crore in the financial year 2022-'23, showcasing the immense commercial potential of GI recognition. Core flaw Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, enforcement hinges on the use of the GI name itself or instances of consumer confusion. Prada did neither. It did not market its sandals as Kolhapuris nor did it mislead its customer base about the product's origin. The company sidestepped the law's textual boundaries, while arguably trampling on its spirit. That highlights a core flaw in India's GI law: it was not framed to address subtle, stylised forms of imitation in transnational fashion circuits. This is not the first time Indian culture has been borrowed without acknowledgement. In 2018, for instance, Indian design studio People Tree said French fashion house Christian Dior had copied one of its prints. Similarly, H&M's 'Wanderlust' collection, created in collaboration with Indian designer Sabyasachi Mukherjee, was claimed to have used GI-tagged hand-block prints without involving or compensating the artisan communities responsible for them. But two elements make the Kolhapuri chappal episode stand out. First, it comes at a time when Indian policymakers are actively promoting GIs as tools of rural empowerment and soft power diplomacy. Second, its unusual aftermath: Prada, after facing public backlash, agreed to a collaborative, artisan-driven 'Made in India' collection. What the law could not compel, public pressure did. This unintended consequence, where a luxury brand voluntarily enters into a fair-trade collaboration, is worth reflecting on. It suggests that while legal enforcement may have failed, ethical compliance may still be a possibility. However, such goodwill cannot be the cornerstone of a country's intellectual property regime. There is an urgent need to reimagine GI protection through the lens of global commerce. This could include bilateral agreements that create binding obligations on GI, mandatory disclosure of origin clauses in fashion exports and soft law instruments under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and or the World Intellectual Property Organization that link heritage usage to benefit-sharing norms. The Prada controversy exposes another persistent weakness in India's GI law: the limited capacity of registered proprietors to monitor and act. In this case, the two state-run corporations that jointly hold the GI – Maharashtra's Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd and Karnataka's Dr Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd – were silent spectators. It took the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, a trade body with no legal ownership of the GI tag, to intervene and negotiate with Prada. This asymmetry in enforcement resources, where smaller artisan groups rely on third parties or media outrage to defend their rights, must be corrected if India is serious about giving its GIs teeth. But perhaps the most valuable lesson is this: the future of GI protection cannot lie in legalese alone. It will require a cultural and strategic repositioning of India's artisan economy, not just as heritage to be preserved, but as intellectual capital to be globally commercialised on fair terms. Prada's eventual collaboration may offer a working model. It came too late to be legally meaningful but early enough to change the narrative. It brought the artisan into the boardroom. The challenge now is to ensure that this becomes the norm, not the exception. India's GI regime must stop being just about recognition and start being about clear enforcement of rights. Debargha Roy is a practising advocate and managing trustee at Project Saathi. Tejaswini Kaushal is a researcher at Project Saathi and writes on IP. Views are personal.
