Mumbai: During a recent session, the Bombay High Court deliberated whether it can address concerns pertaining to the layout and design of the Mumbai Coastal Road Project. This discussion arose even as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) expressed that altering the layout at this stage was not a feasible option.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was presiding over a petition filed by architect Alan Abraham, based in the city. The petitioner sought modifications to the design of the land-filled portion of the Coastal Road (South) to create more accessible open spaces, without making fundamental changes to the overall project.
Altering layout not feasible at this stage: BMC officials say
The plea urged the court to direct the formation of a committee comprising independent experts who could evaluate the petitioner's suggestions. The proposed committee was suggested to include individuals well-versed in urban design, not solely limited to highway engineering.
Legal representatives from the BMC, including Senior Counsel Aspi Chinoy and Advocate Joel Carlos, informed the court that approximately 80 per cent of the project had already been completed. They argued that altering the layout plan at this juncture would be neither practical nor feasible due to substantial work being already done.
The BMC submitted an affidavit asserting that introducing changes at this point would result in significant financial and temporal implications. The affidavit underscored that the design and construction of the Mumbai Coastal Road Project were meticulously based on comprehensive studies conducted by expert bodies.
In response to these contentions, petitioner's counsel Venkatesh Dhond pointed out the extensive reclamation involved in the project and suggested that it could have been executed on the inward land side.
Responding to the technical nature of the concerns, the judges questioned the court's role in considering such intricate matters. Chief Justice Upadhyaya queried whether the petitioner was alleging incompetence or if the objections were driven by personal preference rather than substantial issues that warrant court intervention.
Defending the project's design choices, Aspi Chinoy emphasised that land reclamation was a necessity, as constructing along the coastline with its curved and meandering roads was impractical.
Next hearing on Sept 27
The BMC's affidavit contended that the petitioner's requested changes would introduce numerous curves that could impact the road's intended design speed of 80-100 km/h.
Additionally, the affidavit highlighted that 78 per cent of the project had been completed by August 14, 2023, incurring an expenditure of Rs 5783 crore out of a total construction cost of Rs 9383 crore.
The High Court scheduled the PIL for further hearing on September 27, signaling its intention to deliberate more on the complex issues raised by the petitioner.
(To receive our E-paper on WhatsApp daily, please click here. To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)
