The reliefs which were sought in the application for interim relief were in the following terms: “a)… stopping all activities being carried out by the Respondent No-4 on the land in question inside Aarey Colony; b)… directing the Respondents to carry out the activities for setting up Metro Car depot at the alternative sites referred to in paragraph 3 of the present application; c)… staying the operation of the observations made at page 92 of the impugned order to the effect that Aarey Milk Colony area cannot be referred to as forest; and d)…
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/alleged-misuse-of-official-position-courts-legal-analysis/
any other order or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Subsequently, on 7 October 2019, this Court, while entertaining a Suo Moto Writ Petition, passed an order recording the statement of the Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that no further trees were being felled till the next date of listing. B Ramp area (i) Permission applied on 6 September 2017; (ii) Permission granted by the Tree Authority on 6 July 2018; 4 (iii) Trees permitted to be cut – 235; and (iv) Actual number of trees cut – 212.
IA
No 178233 of 2019 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No 2 of 2019 seeking inter alia, the issuance of directions to the Government of Maharashtra to declare Aarey as a forest and direct that no trees be cut; iii. IA No 107131 and IA 50314 of 2022 in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No 31178 of 2018 seeking, inter alia, a direction restraining the respondents from carrying out all work of construction within the 33 hectares area implicating the Aarey car project; iv. On 17 March 2022, the Union Government in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs addressed a communication to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra, following a meeting which was convened on 23 September 2021 between the Ministry and the officials of the State Government “to discuss the Aarey depot issue which is seriously hampering the progress of Metro Line-3 project”. Some of the major observations in the report are summarized in the communication dated 17 March 2022 and are extracted below: “(i) The simulation exercise done by M/s SYSTRA is incomplete as no simulation internal to depot has been 7 done. 8 (v) There is a requirement of same signalling system from the Line-3 supplier for Line-6 and thus related compulsions.”
In the above backdrop, the communication of the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs noted that the proposed integration of two lines at SEEPZ village station would be a permanent risk to reliable train operations of both the lines. Consequently, the State Government was requested to reconsider its decision to shift the depot of Line-3 from Aarey colony to Kanjurmarg and to allow the restarting of the depot work of Line-3 at Aarey colony for expeditious completion of the project in public interest. While opposing these submissions, Mr C U Singh and Ms Anitha Shenoy, senior counsel, have urged that apart from rejecting the relief which has been sought by 10 MMRCL, there are valid grounds for this Court to not allow the decision of the State Government which was taken on 21 July 2022 to allow the car depot project at Aarey to proceed.
It has been urged that: (i)
The decision which has been taken on 21 July 2022 amounts to a reversal of a considered view which was taken by the State Government on 23 March 2021, while accepting the report of the Expert Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary dated 21 January 2021; (ii) The decision of the Committee was based on cogent considerations, including the fact that the capacity of the proposed car shed at Aarey would be exhausted in 2031 leading to a further need for the felling of approximately 1000 trees should an expansion proposal be taken up in the future; (iii) Once a considered decision was taken by the State Government to accept the report of the Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary, there was no valid basis to rescind the decision in the absence of scientific material which would indicate that a contrary view was more desirable; and (iv) The area in question is ecologically sensitive having due regard to its proximity to the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, which is rich in bio-diversity.
Senior counsel submitted that, in this backdrop, the 11 decision of the State Government to the effect that full capacity utilization of the car shed at Aarey would be reached in 2031 necessitated the realignment of the car shed at Kanjurmarg. The Technical Committee submitted its report on 11 August 2015 and considered the various sites, including the following: “a) Backbay Reclamation, Colaba b) Mumbai Port Trust c) Mahalaxmi Race Course d) Dharavi e) Bandra Kurla Complex f) Mumbai University, Kalina 12 g) Aarey Colony h)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-analysis-on-compliance-with-resolution-plan-conditions/
Sariput Nagar i) Kanjur Marg.”
Case Number: SMW(C) No.-000002 / 2019
