After the High Court dismissed a PIL taking objection to Worli-Bandra leg of Western Freeway Sealink project (WFSL) another PIL has now raised questions about Worli-Nariman Point-Cuff Parade part of the WFSL.
MUMBAI: After the High Court dismissed a PIL taking objection to Worli-Bandra leg of Western Freeway Sealink project (WFSL) another PIL has now raised questions about Worli-Nariman Point-Cuff Parade part of the WFSL.
WFSL envisages creating a parallel way, in part made up of off-shore bridges to link western suburb of Bandra with southern tip of Mumbai.
The PIL filed by Federation of Environment and Developmental Organisations came up for hearing before the Division Bench of Justices JN Patel and Amjed Sayed.
The petitioners' contention is that proposed Worli-Nariman point phase of the sealink will be disastrous for the environment and it will destroy the city's shoreline.
Mainly, they point out that when environmental clearance was granted to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation for this project, the proposed tunnel underneath Napean Sea road to Dadar Chowpatti stretch was not a part of the plan, hence it does not have clearance.
They also alleged that no environmental impact assessment was done before giving the go ahead to the project.
Their lawyer BA Desai told the court on Wednesday that alternative to the sealink was a tunnel from Haji Ali to Worli which would obviate even the need to build flyover over the Pedder Road.
Another contention is that for building the sealink, land will have to be reclaimed at places, which is not permissible under Coastal Regulation Zone notification.
Ministry of Environment and Forests has refuted in its affidavit the contention that WFSL was not violative of any land in accordance with Environmental Impact Assessment rules as well as CRZ rules.
Worli-Nariman point phase of the sealink is expected to cost around Rs 4,143 crore. It would be 13.75 km long.
Construction of Worli-Bandra phase has already begun, and is expected to be over by next year.
The High Court has adjourned the case for four weeks, asking petitioners to file rejoinder to Ministry of environment and forests' reply.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}