Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed by efflux of time a petition by city-based architect seeking changes to the design on the land-filled portion of the coastal road (south) to create more accessible open spaces without fundamentally altering the project. Alternatively, the plea sought constitution of a committee of independent experts to consider petitioners representations in respect of the proposed design changes.
“Since the construction of the coastal road is almost complete, at this stage any change in alignment or design is not permissible. Accordingly the petition, by efflux of time, has lost its efficacy, which is hereby dismissed,” a bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar said.
The plea raised concern in respect of the open / green spaces on the land reclaimed for construction of the coastal road. One of the concerns raised was that the green spaces which have resulted on account of reclamation may be utilised for other purposes.
The bench remarked that it has its limitations and its jurisdiction is not to supervise everything. “If there is any illegality or destruction of the environment then we can ask experts to look into it. This is what is called judicial overreach,” the bench remarked.
Petitioner’s Advocate Tushad Kakalia submitted that in the existing design, the green spaces would be lost. He highlighted that the idea, when floated, was to have seafront open space. “There is no continuous open space as promised. It is in bits and fragments. The user of such open spaces can be changed,” Kakalia said.
BMC advocate Joel Carlos submitted that the open spaces were never meant to be at the seafront. Explaining Mumbai’s coastline topography, Carlos said that its not straight and hence the coastal road too would have been winding. The proposal was always to construct a straight coastal road by reclaiming land and the spaces between the coastal road and existing older road was to be retained as open spaces. He pointed out that a similar representation was made by Abraham in 2022 and the same was rejected.
The bench, however, considering the “concerns” expressed by the petitioner, asked him to make a representation to the Municipal Commissioner within a fortnight. “(Representation will) be accordingly considered by the Commissioner, who shall take decision and action thereon, as per law,” the bench added.
