Clearing the way for the construction of the Versova-Madh connector bridge, a Rs 2,395-crore cable-stayed flyover in suburban Mumbai, by allowing the felling of 1,237 mangroves, the Bombay High Court on Thursday observed that the project would provide some “respite to the Mumbaikars” from inordinate travel delays and traffic jams or congestion.

A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M Sethna allowed a plea by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), seeking permission for a 2,064-metre bridge project over Malad Creek, which involved felling of 1,237 mangroves, since court permission for public projects is mandatory under a 2018 High Court ruling.

“The project is clearly not one undertaken for a private commercial purpose or for the benefit of a particular private entity,” the bench noted in its September 17 detailed ruling, adding that the project is intended for “improving connectivity between Madh Island and the western suburbs of Mumbai.”

Story continues below.
Subscribe to see fewer ads.

“The proposed bridge is aimed at providing some respite to the Mumbaikars from the menace of inordinate delays in travel due to traffic jams/congestion on such widely used roads of the city,” it added.

The court observed that it was an “important factor” that the travel distance between Versova and Madh Island would be “substantially reduced” from the present 22 kilometres to 1.5 kilometres after completion of the project.

Observing that “the environmental impact has not been left unaddressed,” the bench also noted BMC’s submission that 39,000 mangroves will be planted on 9 hectares of degraded mangrove forest land in the North Konkan region.

The BMC has deposited Rs 1.42 crore for 10-year plantation, protection, and maintenance measures. The civic body added that a 2.5-hectare area will be used for in-situ mangrove restoration post-construction, with only 0.2 hectares of mangroves permanently lost. The HC observed that these aspects were “not controverted” and “the mitigation measures proposed are also noteworthy.”

Story continues below this ad

“This court’s limited intervention qua the mangroves in the region, coupled with all necessary safeguards and restoration measures, would subserve larger public interest,” the HC noted. It held that the petitioner-BMC became “entitled to proceed with the proposed project” and clarified that it would be liable for civil and criminal consequences in the event of a breach of undertakings.