Everyone needs to change their mindset about the inconvenience due to Metro III project work going on here, the Bombay High Court said even as the Metro Rail Corporation informed that it has come out with a proposal to ensure minimum nuisance is caused to the public.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice M S Sonak was hearing a petition filed by advocate Robin Jaisinghani that the construction activity of the project was causing noise pollution in areas concerned.
The court had last month refused to allow Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to use heavy machinery or transportation vehicles at night for the Metro III line work.
Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for MMRCL, told the high court that the corporation had come out with a proposal by which it would ensure that the work is carried out and finished expeditiously.
The MMRCL authorities will soon be meeting the petitioner (Jaisinghani) and advocate Zal Andhyarujina, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter, to discuss the proposal and come out with a solution, he said.
The HC then said while there may be some inconvenience, the authorities must see to it that it is bare minimum.
“The Metro project is in public interest…at the same time how much the authorities can reduce the inconvenience and problems caused to public because of the construction work is also important. Everyone needs to change their mindset… everyone needs to come out of their respective attitudes and perceptions,” Chief Justice Chellur said.
She said the authorities must also change their attitude and be pro-active in trying to come out with the best solution.
The bench has now posted the petition for further hearing on November 2.
In another petition filed by Jaisinghani, raising concerns of fire hazards due to the ongoing construction work of the Metro project in Cuffe Parade area of south Mumbai, the bench directed the fire brigade officials to carry out inspection of buildings concerned and submit a report.
In the petition, Jaisinghani had claimed that due to barricades put up in and around the area, in the event of fire in any of the residential buildings, the fire brigade would not be in a position to bring its vehicles inside the premises to douse the flames.
The court has asked the fire brigade department to submit its report by November 2.
Meanwhile, the court posted for hearing on November 6 another petition filed by a city resident challenging the construction of Metro rail car shed at suburban Aarey colony.
The petition claims that Aarey colony is a sensitive eco zone and hence, no construction can be carried out there.
“On August 24 this year, a notification was issued under the MRTP (Maharashtra Regional Town Planning) Act converting the land for construction work,” the petitioners counsel, Janak Dwarkadas, said.
“Earlier, the car shed was to be constructed at a land in Kanjurmarg area but since the ownership of that land is in dispute before this court, the MMRCL decided to construct in Aarey Colony,” the counsel said.
He said the bench should hear the petition pertaining to the Kanjurmarg land dispute first.
Agreeing to this, the high court directed for the petition to be tagged along with this plea.
“The petitions will have to heard together in order to understand the practicality of which land can be used for the Metro car shed,” the HC said.
The 33-km Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ Metro line III project is a part of the Metro system which will connect the Cuffe Parade business district in south Mumbai to SEEPZ in the city’s north-central suburb.