Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The division bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, on Wednesday, asked whether it could entertain petitions concerning the layout of the Mumbai Coastal Road project, especially when the BMC had already completed around 80% of the project. 

The high court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by a city-based architect. The petition sought directives to alter the design of the coastal road near Nariman Point without requiring a complete overhaul of the entire project.

Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy and Advocate Joel Carlos, representing the BMC, informed the court that nearly 80% of the project had already been completed. They emphasized that altering the design at this stage would not be practical, as it could lead to a significant extension of the project's timeline.

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the road could be constructed on inward land.

It was then that Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya asked if the court could consider the issue at this stage.
"Are you alleging incompetence? What are your apprehensions and objections? Or is it that you just don't like the design? Are these issues that the court ought to consider?" The court asked.

Chinoy informed the court that constructing the road on inward land would undermine the purpose of reclamation, and it would be challenging to incorporate curves that would meet the intended speed of 80-100 kmph.

The bench was further apprised that the BMC had already expended Rs 5,783 crore, accounting for a significant portion of the total construction cost of Rs 9,383 crore.

Additionally, Chinoy also questioned the maintainability of the petition and said that the bench would essentially be stepping into the role of town planner if the petition was allowed. 

The plea also sought constituting a committee of independent experts including those proficient in the field of urban design and not merely highway engineering who could consider the representation of the petitioner.

The bench then allowed the petitioner to file an additional affidavit and posted the matter for September 27.

Case title: Alan Abraham vs. MCGM