The Bombay High Court on Friday directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to explain two discrepancies while granting permission for the Bandra-Versova Sea Link and restrained the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) from cutting mangroves beyond 200 square metres, which is required to construct 10 pillars for the project.
The sea link that will connect with the existing Bandra-Worli Sea Link will have three exit and entry points at Bandra, Juhu Koliwada, and Versova. It has been proposed to ease traffic congestion in the western suburbs, primarily on SV Road and the Western Express Highway.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharati Dangre, which was hearing a plea filed by local resident Zoru Bhathena, asked the ministry to explain how the permission given by the forest department was contrary to the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) department’s permission.
The CRZ clearance had stated that there would be a permanent loss of mangroves on 150 square metres while there would be temporary loss of mangroves on 50 square metres. But the permission granted under the provision of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, said of diverting 2,997 hectares of mangrove forest land to the MSRDC for the project and permitted 1,585 mangroves to be cut.
The Bench, with the help of documents, went through the actual area of the footprint required for each pillar or stilt where the calculations showed each pillar had a footprint of 4.9 square metres. This would amount to 40.9 square metre footprint for the MSRDC to build 10 pillars in the mangrove areas, which prompted the HC to question why the MSRDC needed 200 square metres. The Bench expressed displeasure in the manner in which permissions were granted.
The plea filed by Mr. Bhathena had opposed the MSRDC petition which sought to cut 1,585 mangroves. The MSRDC was earlier granted permission by a different Bench of the High Court in February to cut the said mangroves, but Mr. Bhathena had approached the Supreme Court which had sent back the matter to the HC for fresh consideration.
