Vile Parle Vyapari and Residents Associations and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2009WP/1449/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a State decision to construct a sky walk on DJ Road, Vileparle. The petitioner argued that removed encroachments made the project unnecessary and cited exorbitant costs and tree cutting. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the policy decision as necessary for future planning and public welfare.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vile Parle Vyapari and Residents Associations… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2009

¶4

Vileparle Vyapari & Residents Association .. Petitioner

Versus

MSRDC Ltd.

and others

.. Respondents

Shri Alok Gupta i/by Shri Mihir Desai for the Petitioner Ms. Kajale, AGP for the Respondents- State Ms.Geeta Jogalekar for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

¶10

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATED : Reserved for order on: 13/11/ 2009 Order declared on : 26 /11/ 2009

¶12

J U D G E M E N T (Per Mridula Bhatkar,J.)

¶13

Rule.

¶14

Respondents waive service.

¶15

By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.

¶16

The residents and Traders of Vileparle West and their association i.e. respondent 1- Vile Parle Vyapari and Residents Association (proposed), have filed this petition to oppose construction of sky walk at D.J.Road, Wile Parle (West) Mumbai and prayed for the relief in the nature of writ of certiorari or of any other nature to quash the decision taken to that effect.

¶17

¶18

In 2008 the respondents have taken a decision to

¶19

construct a sky walk to solve the problems of traffic and hawkers to enable the pedestrians to walk freely.

¶20

Learned counsel Mr. Desai appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in Writ Petition No. 2444/08 the High Court has directed the State and the Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai to remove the encroachments of the hawkers and clear the D.J. Road for the residents and pedestrians. Accordingly the Municipal corporation and the State have submitted report to the High Court and in view of their statement, the Writ Petition No. 2444/2008 was disposed of. The petitioners who are the residents of the same locality have now filed this petition on the ground that as the squatters, hawkers on the DJ Road, Vileparle (West) have been removed, the road is cleared and the footpath is available for the pedestrians to walk, the need of a sky walk does not exist. He has further submitted that after clearing the roads pursuant to the order of the High Court the respondents should have taken the survey and should have reexamined the necessity of the sky walk.

¶21

Learned counsel Mr. Desai appearing for the petitioner

¶22

¶23

submitted that the Government has taken a decision to construct the sky walk to solve the problem of the pedestrians and traffic. However, as the obstructions are removed, alternative solution for the pathway is not required. He has further submitted that the petitioners have challenged the decision in the public interest on the ground that the cost of the sky walk is exorbitantly high. It is further submitted that the information submitted to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act discloses the cost @ of Rs.450/- per sq.ft. The sky walk is of 500 meters length and accordingly, if calculated it costs Rs.

¶24

One crore. However, the tenders are called upto Rs.14 crores. This exorbitant cost is a waste of the public money and it is to be checked and controlled.

¶25

He has further pointed out that the there are old and big trees on the DJ Road and for the construction of this sky walk those trees are chopped. The photographs were produced by learned counsel for the petitioners showing the actual cutting of the branches of the trees.

¶26

Our attention was drawn to the report- Elevated Pedestrian Walkways Pre-feasibility Study Draft Final Report prepared

¶27

¶28

by Frischmann Prabhu (India) Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel submitted that in Clause 6.11 of the said report, encroachments, pedestrian density, landuse etc. are considered to be the necessary factors for the construction of the sky walk and they ought to have been reviewed by the respondents.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the MMRDA has relied on

¶30

the affidavit in reply and submitted that the decision to construct Vile-parle sky walk was taken after proper study and said sky walk is

¶31

the answer to the problems of the pedestrians and traffic. It is submitted that the said locality is crowded with 10 educational institutions which run in multiple shifts and 80% of the students are local who use the road and require clear roadways. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trees were not cut but the huge branches with girth of more than 6 feet have been cut. It is further submitted that the construction cost of the sky walk is not exorbitant or high as stated by the the petitioners, as the submissions are based on incorrect calculations. The design and/or plan of the sky walk contemplates a stronger foundation, RCC Piers, Steel Structure

¶32

for super structure and better overall finishing i.e. roofing, flooring etc. Total area which needs to be constructed is also required to

¶33

¶34

be considered. The cost is based on the technical norms and there

¶35

will be no wastage of public money. It is further submitted that

¶36

majority of the local public have registered their positive opinion in the visitor’s book kept at the site of the construction. So, the apprehension of the petitioners in this regard is not well founded. We find substance in these submissions.

¶37

The construction of the sky walk being a policy decision of the State and other public bodies, there is not much scope and propriety to interfere with it. We are not inclined to hold that the policy decision is incorrect or flawed. D. J. Road is near the railway station. The city like Mumbai and suburbs especially like Vile-parle are over populated. Heavy traffic, crowding of the shops and people

¶38

is an unending process in this metro city and to meet these challenges, it is incumbent on the State and the public bodies to chalk out such policy. The survey report carried out by the respondent is before us. On the basis of that, the construction of the

¶39

sky walk has been approved. The sky walk is an alternative and good substitute for the footpath and so it may solve the problem of crowding on the road and of the pedestrians and also the terrific to certain extent. The State while designing and implementing any

¶40

¶41

policy has to consider not only the present state of affairs but also the possibilities in the future. Sky way is a new concept. We are of the opinion that it takes time for the people to get used to the new ways and methods. The respondents, on our query, have informed us that the trees are preserved, only the branches are chopped.

¶42

In our considered opinion, the petitioners have not made out any case warranting this court’s interference. We cannot stall such project which is likely to give relief to the public at large in the present and future.

¶43

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is

¶44

dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

¶45

( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) (RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶46

jpc/

Vile Parle Vyapari and Residents Associations and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vile Parle Vyapari and Residents Associations and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkumar Jalan Public Charitable Trust Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

S.R. Panwalkar and 14 Ors. Vs Bombay Port Trust and 5 Ors.

Sanjay Sankataprasad Singh Vs the Bombay Municipal Commissioer and 2 Ors.

Cotton County Retail Ltd. Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation

Mrs. Laxmi Sukhadeo Ghorpade and Anr. Vs State of Maharasthra and 5 Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Jaishukhlal Joshi Vs M/S. Air India Ltd. and Ors.