Cracks on Atal Setu: Bombay High Court upholds interim closure of stone crushing plants

The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of Panvel mandating the closure of stone-crushing plants operating near the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link popularly known as ‘Atal Setu’ [Shridhar Kashinath Bhagat v SDO, Panvel]..The Court observed that the closure orders were a necessary "pro-tem measure" until a thorough inspection and verification is conducted by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) or any other competent institution to determine whether there is any connection between the operation of stone crushers and cracks on the bridge. "Thus, the order clearly indicates that the directions issued for closure of stone crushing plants are nothing but a pro-tem measure till the IIT, or other competent institute conducts inspection and verification and submits its report as to whether Petitioners’ stone crushing plants are really causing any damage to the Trans-Harbour Link or endangering lives of passengers travelling thereon. In that view of the matter, the orders dated 28 June 2024 are required to be treated as conditional orders or preliminary orders within Section 133 of the Code," single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne observed in his order..The Court emphasized the significance of the sea-link, describing it as "one of the premier infrastructure projects of the country" and highlighting the extensive expenditure involved in its construction. The Court further noted that the sea-link serves as a crucial entry and exit point for Mumbai. .Such a structure must not be jeopardized by activities like mining, blasting or stone crushing, the judge underscored. "Trans Harbour Sea Link is one of the premier infrastructure projects of the Country undertaken after incurring of expenditure thousands of crores of rupees. It offers a crucial link for entry and exit to Mumbai City. Such a structure cannot be put to risk on account of operation or activities such as mining, blasting and stone crushing," the Court said..The Court was hearing a petition by owners of stone crushing plants challenged the closure orders passed by SDO under section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 133 empowers State authorities to remove any unlawful obstruction or nuisance from public place. The petitioners argued that there was no concrete evidence to suggest that their operations were causing damage to the sea-link.They contended that the orders were arbitrary and based on mere allegations without scientific backing. The petitioners further argued that their businesses provide employment to a large number of people and that the closure would lead to significant financial losses.Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, appearing on behalf of the state, argued that the stone-crushing activities posed a significant threat to the integrity of the sea-link and public safety. He emphasized that the State had a responsibility to protect critical infrastructure from potential harm caused by nearby industrial operations. Venegaonkar cited news reports of cracks developing in the sea-link as a direct concern stemming from the activities of the petitioners' plants. He insisted that immediate action was necessary to mitigate any risks until a formal assessment could confirm the extent of the damage..After considering the submissions, the Court said that the closure was a precautionary measure until expert agencies could submit their findings. The judge clarified that the presence or absence of cracks, and whether the stone-crushing activities were causing any damage to the bridge, could only be determined after the expert reports were available. "In my view whether cracks have occurred or not and whether blasting, mining or stone crushing activities have caused any damage to the bridge is concerned, position would be clear only after the expert agencies come out with their reports. Alleged developing of cracks to the structure is only one of the reasons why the closure order is made for now," the Court opined..Senior Advocate AY Sakhare along with advocate Sanket Thakur appeared for the petitioner.Public Prosecutor Hiten S Venegaonkar and Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa K Gajare represented the State. Advocates Jitendra Jagtap and Eshikaa Sood,Maria Shaikh represented Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.Advocate Sameer Palsuledessai also appeared for one of the respondents..[Read Judgment]