The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed the appeal against the construction of a ₹229 crore passenger jetty and terminal near Mumbai's iconic Gateway of India. The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai along with Justice K Vinod Chandran, upheld the Bombay High Court's July 15 order that had paved the way for the jetty project while stipulating specific conditions regarding the facilities to be provided at or near the terminal.

The High Court had allowed the project to progress but laid down clear directives:

1. The amphitheatre proposed within the project should be used solely as a seating area and not for entertainment

2. The café at the site is permitted to serve only water and packaged food with no dining services

3. And the existing jetty must be phased out gradually.

Facts:

Concerns in the instant case had been raised about the absence of sewage treatment facilities in the proposed project, but the High Court chose not to halt the project, instead advocating for a balanced and sustainable approach to its implementation.

It recognized that the primary function of the jetty was for the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers, nothing beyond that. This struck a balance between developmental progress and preservation, prompting the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association to bring the matter before the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing the petitioner-association, argued against relocating the existing jetty 250 meters away, stating it would fail to alleviate congestion effectively.

He highlighted that the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) lacked jurisdiction to approve the project, contending, "MCZMA had no authority to look at it. Even if they had to consider they should have the seen the reports.," he argued.

Additionally, he pointed out the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was not consulted during the project’s approval process.

He further criticized the project’s scale and location, remarking,

"This is a massive project which is not suitable as per the area being built on. This will dwarf the entire area.. it is massive. The area is a heritage facing. You have a massive jetty in middle of port. Which is like an extension of the port. High Court says if jetty falls within port, it is not a standalone jetty. Does it have the carrying capacity? Has that been checked? It's silent. Their own traffic simulation study says after going into it threadbare. They said 75 percent of the persons who come to Goa on boats visits the gateway first.. So they first will come to gateway and then walk to jetty. Are you then seriously doing this for the 25 percent who will not visit the gateway," he stated, challenging the project's rationale.

On the other side, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra, supported the project’s benefits to all of Mumbai’s populace.

He stated, "I am here for the entire Bombay population the other side is for few people who will be inconvenienced."

Chief Justice Gavai stressed the broader perspective by saying, "See you cannot look at it from the angle of only people who are staying in the Taj Mahal Hotel. Aamchi Mumbai does not stay near that area.. they are in Dombivali etc. This is a matter in policy domain."

The Bench also questioned, "How will the area look after the jetty comes? Any projection?" demonstrating the court’s concern about the project’s impact on the surroundings.

The petitions filed before the High Court by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) and some local residents, including Laura D’Souza, sought to overturn the State government’s approval of the terminal’s construction.

The objections included the project’s proximity to the Gateway of India, a protected heritage monument, and it was pointed out that part of the sea-facing wall along the Gateway promenade would be removed to provide terminal access.

The petitioners described the design as a tennis racquet-shaped jetty and terminal with VIP lounges, waiting areas, ticketing counters, administrative spaces, and parking for 150 vehicles.

Moreover, the petitioners argued that the approval process had overlooked public participation since no notices or consultations with local residents were undertaken.

They questioned how the Mumbai Traffic Police granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) despite the area’s already severe congestion and traffic problems, and challenged approvals given by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, the Heritage Conservation Committee, and the Traffic Police.

Judgement awaited.

Case Details : CLEAN HERITAGE COLABA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (CHCRA) VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA