MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday sought an independent comprehensive report from Union civil aviation secretary Rajiv Bansal on the issue of height clearance granted for an over-ground Metro rail project in Mumbai.
The HC bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and M S Karnik said, “Bansal shall also consider the aspect of safety and security of the public, who reside in the vicinity of Juhu Airport, and throw light as to whether commissioning of the metro rail line of the MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority) would in any way affect aircraft operations at Juhu Airport.’’
Adjourning a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the NOC for the Metro 2B line to February 28, the HC permitted the MMRDA to “carry on preparatory work for the metro Rail line, viz Geotechnical investigation and utility identification’’ till further orders and clarified “apart from such preparatory work, no other work may be carried out without the prior leave of this Court at the site.’’
The HC was the PIL filed by one Harit Desai who challenged the No-objection Certificate (NOC) granted by Airport Authority of India (AAI) to the MMRDA for the construction of an over-ground Metro rail line within the Funnel Zone to the east of the approach and take off climb surface of runways 26 and 08, respectively, of the Juhu Airport. The NOC was contrary to the ministry’s (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015, submitted Desai’s counsel Nishant Thakkar. The PIL expressed apprehension of loss of lives from accidents if the metro line of the MMRDA was commissioned.
The rail corridor is from DN Nagar, Andheri (west) to Mankhurd.
The court, after hearing AAI counsel, Sandeep Marne, and the state advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni wanted to know if the NOC conforms to the rules.
Observing that since it does not have expertise to examine the technicalities involved “but at the same time the concern raised… in this PIL appears to be serious”, the HC sought assistance from an expert in civil aviation.
“Accordingly, we proposed that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)… could be requested to examine the concern raised by the petitioner in the light of his complaint of breach of the provisions of the 2015 Rules by the AAI as well as his apprehension of loss of lives resulting from accidents, if the metro rail line of the MMRDA were commissioned.’’
However, counsel Thakkar brought it to the court’s notice that Arun Kumar, who is the incumbent DGCA, was at the relevant point of time the incumbent joint secretary (airports), ministry of civil aviation, and that he was involved in the decision-making process leading to issuance of the impugned NOC. He thus requested to substitute the DGCA by the secretary, civil aviation, which the HC accepted after Kumbhakoni and Marne did not object.
The HC directed that Thakkar and D P Singh, advocate for the central government will bring its order to the notice of the secretary, civil aviation ministry.