The Bombay High Court has allowed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to proceed with the Rs 2,395-crore Versova-Madh connector bridge, clearing the felling of 1,237 mangroves for a project intended to reduce travel delays between Madh Island and Mumbai’s western suburbs.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M Sethna granted the civic body’s plea after examining the proposed safeguards and restoration measures. Court permission was required because a 2018 High Court ruling made judicial approval mandatory for public projects involving mangroves.
The proposed 2,064-metre cable-stayed bridge will cross Malad Creek and connect Versova with Madh Island. The court observed that the project could provide “respite to the Mumbaikars” from prolonged travel delays and congestion on heavily used city roads.
According to the court’s September 17 detailed ruling, the present travel distance between Versova and Madh Island is about 22 kilometres. Once the connector is completed, the distance is expected to fall to 1.5 kilometres. The court noted that the project was not being undertaken for a private commercial purpose or for the benefit of a particular private entity, but to improve connectivity between Madh Island and the western suburbs.
The approval comes with environmental conditions and obligations for the BMC. The civic body told the court that 39,000 mangroves would be planted across nine hectares of degraded mangrove forest land in the North Konkan region. It has deposited Rs 1.42 crore towards plantation, protection and maintenance for a period of 10 years.
The BMC also submitted that 2.5 hectares would be used for in-situ mangrove restoration after construction. It said only 0.2 hectares of mangroves would be permanently lost as a result of the project. The High Court recorded that these submissions had not been controverted and described the proposed mitigation measures as noteworthy.
The court said its limited intervention regarding mangroves, together with the safeguards and restoration measures, would serve the larger public interest. It therefore held that the BMC was entitled to proceed with the project.
The ruling also places legal responsibility on the civic body to comply with its undertakings. The court clarified that the BMC would be liable for civil and criminal consequences if it breached the commitments made in relation to the project and its environmental safeguards.
