Bombay High Court Affirms Interim Closure of Stone Crushing Plants Near Atal Setu
The Bombay High Court upheld the interim closure of stone-crushing plants operating near the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link, known as Atal Setu, in a ruling delivered on Monday. This decision supports the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of Panvel’s orders to halt the operations of these plants pending a detailed investigation.
The Court acknowledged that the closure was a necessary “pro-tem measure” until an expert review by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) or another qualified institution can ascertain if the stone-crushing activities are contributing to the observed cracks in the bridge. The single-judge bench, led by Justice Sandeep Marne, emphasized the importance of the sea-link as a vital infrastructure project, noting its significant cost and role in providing a crucial entry and exit point for Mumbai.
Justice Marne highlighted that such a major infrastructure project must not be endangered by potentially harmful activities like stone crushing, mining, or blasting. The Court’s ruling reflects the need to safeguard the integrity of the sea-link while waiting for a formal assessment of the situation.
The ruling came in response to a petition from the stone-crushing plant owners challenging the SDO’s orders under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section allows authorities to address and remove any unlawful obstructions or nuisances from public places. The petitioners argued that there was no concrete evidence linking their operations to the damage reported on the sea-link, describing the orders as arbitrary and financially detrimental.
In contrast, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar argued that the stone-crushing activities posed a significant risk to the sea-link’s structural integrity and public safety. He pointed to news reports of cracks developing in the bridge as evidence supporting the need for immediate precautionary measures.
The Court agreed that while the presence of cracks and their potential cause could only be confirmed through expert reports, the interim closure was a prudent step to mitigate any risks. The judge underscored that the definitive impact of the stone-crushing activities on the bridge could only be determined once the expert findings are available.
Senior Advocate AY Sakhare and Advocate Sanket Thakur represented the petitioners, while Public Prosecutor Hiten S. Venegaonkar and Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa K. Gajare represented the State. Advocates Jitendra Jagtap, Eshikaa Sood, and Maria Shaikh appeared for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, and Advocate Sameer Palsuledessai also represented one of the respondents.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
