HC dismisses PIL challenging Bandra-Versova Sea Link

Bombay HC dismissed a petition against the Bandra-Versova Sea Link, emphasizing its importance for Mumbai's development and rejecting concerns over obstructed views.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the Maharashtra government’s approval to construct the Bandra-Versova Sea Link on the grounds that the project went against the principle of sustainable development and violated environmental laws.

Mumbai, India - May 8, 2018: Soil testing at Juhu beach for proposed Versova-Bandra sea link project in Mumbai, India, on Tuesday, May 8, 2018. (Photo by Satyabrata Tripathy/Hindustan Times) (Satyabrata Tripathy/HT Photo)

A division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice MS Karnik refused to interfere with the state government’s decision, emphasising on the importance of the project for the development of Mumbai. It also rejected the petitioners’ contention that the project would obstruct the sea view at the iconic Juhu Beach, saying this could not be a ground to stop a development project of public value.

“Merely because your view is obstructed, the project cannot be stalled,” the bench said. “We cannot exercise our power in this. Ultimately, it’s the government who can decide.”

The petition, filed by three Andheri residents, stated that the project, which is aligned parallel to Juhu Beach, would directly hinder the iconic beach’s natural beauty and deprive people from enjoying the view. It also contended that the state government had taken all the necessary steps to preserve the sea view at Juhu beach till 2010. However, the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) later approved constructing the sea link just 900 metres away from the coast, which would destroy the beach, the petition alleged.

“The project is depriving the citizens of India/residents of Mumbai to enjoy the natural beauty and important amenities of life for the convenience of the society. A development plan is necessary to be indispensable to sanitation and healthy urbanisation (sic),” it stated.

“The right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or cannot be limited to as a misnomer to simple construction activities (sic),” the petition added.

However, the bench said the court has no expertise in assessing the project’s environmental impact. It clarified that the court does not wish to interfere with the development process, as this was a project undertaken for public good.

Calling the PIL a “luxury petition,” the court stated, “You can take a more direct action for the cause. Sit on a hunger strike in front of Mantralaya. That could be more effective than filing this petition.”