Bombay High Court refuses to stop land reclamation for Shivaji Memorial

The site of the Shivaji Maharaj memorial statue in Arabian Sea. ( Express photo by Prashant Nadkar)

The Bombay High Court on Friday refused to stop reclamation of land for the Chhatrapati Shivaji Memorial in the Arabian Sea. The court was hearing a petition filed by the Conservation Action Trust objecting to Clause (D) of the notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF), dated February 17, 2015.

According to the petitioners, Clause (D) states: “The central government may if it considers necessary so to do, dispense with the requirement of a public hearing, if it is satisfied that the project will not involve rehabilitation and resettlement of the public or the project site is located away from human habitation.”

Senior Counsel V A Thorat, along with advocate Prachi Tatake, for the state government, told the court that public hearing was required only in those cases where a project affects human habitation and that in this case, people were not affected and so, there is no need to conduct a public hearing.

Chief Justice Naresh H Patil and Justice G S Kulkarni said: “Prima facie, on a plain reading of Clause (D), ipso facto (by that very fact or act), in our opinion, the incorporation of Clause(D) does not appear to be invalid or illegal.”

The court said: “Another reason for which we do not find favour to the submissions as urged on behalf of the petitioners is that, in undertaking the present project the state government has in terms stated that the project does not involve rehabilitation and resettlement of the public and the project site is located away from human habitation…It also cannot be overlooked that the project is considered by the state government to be of national importance.”

Another petitioner, Mohan Prabhakar Bhide, a Chartered Accountant, told the court about the budget of the project, which according to him, was around Rs 3,600 crore. He told the court that to have such a project, to be constructed from public funds, is a waste of tax payers’ money.

On his petition, the bench said: “We may observe that the decision to have a project of this nature is a policy decision taken by the state. From the reply affidavit (of the state), it is clear that proper financial provision has been made and normal expenditure, which would be incurred by the state government on other necessary requirements, is not being affected. The court also noted that Thorat said the state contemplates a scheme, which would be worked out to recoup the cost of the project, which may include fees that would be charged from visitors.

Disposing of the petition of Bhide, the court said: “We would leave these issues and concern of the petitioner to the wisdom of the state government. The priorities of the public need are matters that lie completely in the domain of the state government. We are sure that the state government has given appropriate consideration on all the financial issues before taking a policy decision to undertake the project in question.”

The court also made an observation on the failure of the central government to file an affidavit within seven months after the order. The court said: “We are deeply pained and disturbed at this casual and negligent approach on the part of all concerned who were supposed to represent the interest of the MoEF. We thus may observe that the Union of India is in breach of the orders of the division bench. We, however, propose to deal with this situation in a separate order.”