‘Why was skywalk from Bandra station to BKC shut?’: Bombay HC

The court has also asked the MMRDA to explain why a new foot overbridge (FoB), which was the subject of a suo motu writ petition, was not completed.

The Bombay high court (HC) has directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to explain why the skywalk, which connects Bandra railway station to Bandra-Kurla Complex, was shut last month, and on whose authority the decision was made. The court has also asked the MMRDA to explain why a new foot overbridge (FoB), which was the subject of a suo motu writ petition, was not completed.

The Bombay high court (HC) has directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to explain why the skywalk, which connects Bandra railway station to Bandra-Kurla Complex, was shut last month, and on whose authority the decision was made. (HT Photo)

The division bench of chief justice Pradeep Nandrajog and justice NM Jamdar, while hearing a notice of motion filed by KPP Nair, a resident of Bandra (East), was informed that the skywalk was shut since the past three weeks as a result of which commuting to and from the railway station had become chaotic.

The petitioner said the closure of the skywalk had now led to increase of foot traffic on a dilapidated foot overbridge. Nair opined that due to the rains, the situation could take a turn for the worse within no time.

In light of these submissions, he sought restoration of the previous petition wherein the court had directed the MMRDA and Indian Railways to ensure that a new bridge from platforms 6 and 7, connecting to the skywalk was completed by June 30.

Nair said that as the concerned authorities had not complied with the order, the petition should be restored; directions issued to the authorities to complete work of the new FoB expeditiously, and resume functioning of the skywalk.

After hearing the submissions, the bench sought to know why the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had posted the closure notice though the FoB came under the jurisdiction of the MMRDA and was maintained by it. The bench said it was not concerned with the dispute between the authorities as to who was responsible and wanted answers by August 21.