Gateway jetty project: Residents file plea in SC

MUMBAI: A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to stay construction of a controversial jetty and terminal project at the iconic Gateway of India. The project, which allegedly threatens heritage structures, the marine environment, and public safety, is scheduled for a hearing in the apex court on May 27.
The petition has been filed by Laura D'Souza, president of the Cuffe Parade Residents' Association, through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP. It contests the Bombay High Court's orders dated May 7 and 8, which declined to grant interim relief to halt ongoing construction, demolition, or alteration activities related to the Passenger Jetty and Terminal Facilities.
According to the petitioners, the project impacts more than 2.1 lakh residents in the Colaba area. D'Souza argued that the High Court failed to consider the overwhelming public interest involved and the irreversible damage the construction could cause. 'The project commenced without prior public notification, consultation, or engagement with local stakeholders,' she said, criticising the court's observation that the petitioners had approached it at the last moment, despite knowing about the project earlier.
The plea also alleges that various approvals, No Objection Certificates (NOCs), and environmental assessment reports were granted without due diligence or adherence to regulatory procedures. It argues that many of these clearances are in violation of prevailing environmental, heritage, and coastal zone regulations.
The petition contends that the High Court erred in allowing the project to continue based solely on the government's assertion of its public importance. It states that the court failed to apply the well-established legal tests for granting interim relief—namely, a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm.
'The High Court's order does not reflect a proper appreciation of the irreversible impact this massive construction will have on heritage structures such as the Gateway of India and the surrounding coastal ecosystem,' the petition states. It further argues that the scale of the project—spanning over 15.5 acres of sea area—will drastically alter the character and safety of the Colaba coastline.
There is also mounting local opposition. Besides the Cuffe Parade Residents' Association, other objectors include the Bombay Presidency Radio Club, prominent business owners, regular visitors to the area, and elected representatives from both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. These stakeholders have urged that the project be shifted to Princess Dock, which has been identified in a feasibility report as a more suitable and less disruptive location.
Safety concerns are also central to the petition. It refers to the tragic incident on December 18, 2024, when an Indian Navy speedboat collided with the passenger ferry Neel Kamal near the Gateway of India, resulting in 15 fatalities. The collision occurred in the same waters where the new jetty is being constructed. The petition argues that increasing maritime traffic in this already congested zone could significantly raise the risk of future accidents.
'This project is being pushed forward under the guise of public benefit, but in reality, it serves the interests of a select few. If allowed to proceed, it will endanger lives, violate legal safeguards, and permanently damage one of Mumbai's most historic and environmentally sensitive zones,' said D'Souza.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

12 hours ago

• The Hindu

High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

The Hindu

12 hours ago

• The Hindu

Bike taxi riders stage silent protest at Vidhan Soudha in Bengaluru

A group of bike taxi riders assembled in front of Vidhan Soudha in Bengaluru for a silent protest on June 21 against the government of Karnataka for not supporting their business. They want the government of Karnataka to frame rules for bike taxis. Bike taxi riders protest in Bengaluru On June 16, app-based bike taxi operations were told to stop operations across Karnataka, following the refusal of the High Court to stay an earlier order mandating the suspension of such services unless the State introduces regulatory norms under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On June 13, a Division Bench of the High Court upheld a single judge order dated April 2, which had directed all bike taxi services to wind up operations within six weeks. The move is believed to have affect thousands of riders and commuters. An executive of a leading bike taxi aggregator platform, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed that over six lakh individuals in Karnataka depend on bike taxi gigs for their livelihood. 'Most of them earn around ₹35,000 a month, and this ban could push many families into financial distress,' the official claimed. Adi Narayana, president of the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, said many riders are approaching the association's offices seeking clarity on their future. 'Most of our captains have EMIs to pay, families to feed, and rent to cover. This is not just about losing a job, it's about losing the ability to survive. Will the government offer any support?' On June 21, some of the affected bike taxi riders turned up in front of Vidhan Soudha for a silent protest. Some of them had come from as far as Nelamangala, Hoskote, Mandya, and Ramanagara. One of them told The Hindu, 'I work in Peenya industrial estate in Bengaluru. My wife works as a maid. We have two children. I was working part-time for a bike taxi operator to supplement my income. Bengaluru is an expensive city, and I could not afford to take care of my family with my salary.' The bike riders had come together for the protest on their own, and were not led by any organisation. On seeing bike taxi riders gathering in front of Vidhan Soudha, police advised them to disperse saying they could not stage a protest at the site without permission. Some of the protesters were taken into custody while the others were told to disperse, or risk arrest. One bike taxi rider told The Hindu, 'We were not aware that we needed permission to protest in front of Vidhan Soudha in Bengaluru. We will come again. Police advised us to taken permission and protest at Freedom Park in Bengaluru.' Following the ban on their operations, a Rapido spokesperson had said, 'This is a difficult time for our captains, who depend on us for their main source of income. They have played a key role in enabling affordable, last-mile transportation for millions across Karnataka.' The company stated that it is actively engaging with the Karnataka Transport Department to develop a regulatory framework that is not only lawful, but also viable for all stakeholders involved. It stressed that the safety of commuters and the well-being of gig workers will continue to be at the heart of its approach. 'We remain optimistic that ongoing discussions with the authorities will lead to a balanced policy framework, similar to those in other States and Union Territories,' the spokesperson had added.

Business Standard

13 hours ago

• Business Standard

HCs not custodian of revenue department, says SC; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.