Aarey or Kanjurmarg: Bombay HC says it needs to understand practicality

MMRC has already begun work in Aarey colony. (Dilip Kagda)

The Bombay High Court on Monday said it needed to understand the “practicality of which land” between Aarey and Kanjurmarg can be utilised for Metro car service and allied uses. To ascertain this, the court has decided to tag a writ petition pertaining to the Kanjurmarg site, along with the public interest litigation raising objections to setting up of the Metro car shed at Aarey.

Arguing for the petitioners, Amrita Bhatacharjee and Biju Augustine, senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas said: “Aarey site is an eco-sensitive zone and a green zone. Despite this, a notification was issued by the government on August 24 this year under the MRTP (Maharashtra Regional Town Planning) Act converting the land use to car shed. Earlier, the car shed was to be constructed on land in Kanjurmarg but there was a dispute relating to a park in the areas leading to the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation shifting the car shed to Aarey.” He added: “This is a low-lying natural basin where water, which overflows from the Mithi river goes. If a car shed is allowed to come up here the water will overflow into the city.”

He asked the bench headed by Chief Justice Manjula Chellur to hear the petition pertaining to the Kanjurmarg land dispute alongside the PIL. Agreeing to it, the court directed for that petition to be tagged along with the PIL and said: “The petitions will have to heard together in order to understand the practicality of which land can be utilised for the Metro car shed.”

Meanwhile, hearing other matters relating to Metro construction, the court said everyone needs to change their mindset when it comes to facing inconvenience during construction of the Metro 3 project. A division bench of Chief Justice Chellur and Justice M S Sonak was hearing a petition filed by an advocate, Robin Jaisinghani, related to the Metro construction activities in Cuffe Parade resulting in noise pollution in the area.

Last month, the court had refused to allow the MMRCL the use of heavy machinery or transportation vehicles at night for the Metro 3 work. Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for the MMRCL, on Monday, told the court that it had come out with a proposal by which it would ensure that the work is carried out and finished expeditiously. MMRCL authorities will be soon meeting with the petitioner (Jaisinghani) and advocate Zal Andhyarujina, appointed as amicus curiae, to assist the court in the matter, to discuss the proposal and come out with a solution, he said.

The court then said while there may be some inconvenience, the authorities must see to it that it is at the bare minimum. “Metro project is in public interest … at the same time, how much can the authorities reduce the inconvenience and problems caused to public because the construction work is also important. Everyone needs to change their mindset … everyone needs to come out of their respective attitudes and perceptions,” Chief Justice Chellur said. The bench has posted the petition for further hearing on November 2.

In another petition filed by Jaisinghani raising concerns about fire hazards due to the ongoing construction work of Metro in Cuffe Parade area of south Mumbai, the bench directed fire brigade officials to carry out inspection of the buildings concerned and submit a report.