Recently the Bombay High Court affirmed the directives issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of Panvel, which required the closure of stone-crushing plants situated in the vicinity of the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link, commonly referred to as the 'Atal Setu'.

The Court noted that the closure orders were a precautionary "pro-tem measure" pending a comprehensive inspection and verification by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) or any other qualified institution to assess whether the stone crushers' operations are linked to the 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 underscored the importance of the sea-link, calling it "one of the premier infrastructure projects of the country" and emphasizing the substantial investment in its construction. It also highlighted that the sea-link is a vital entry and exit point for Mumbai. The judge stressed that such a critical structure should not be endangered by activities like mining, blasting, or stone crushing.

"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 filed by the owners of stone-crushing plants, who challenged the closure orders issued by the SDO under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section empowers State authorities to remove any unlawful obstruction or nuisance from public spaces.

The petitioners argued that there was no concrete evidence linking their operations to damage to the sea-link. They claimed the orders were arbitrary, based solely on unverified allegations without any scientific support. Additionally, the petitioners stressed that their businesses employed a large number of people, and the closures would result in significant financial losses.

Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the State, contended that the stone-crushing activities posed a serious threat to the sea-link’s structural integrity and to public safety. He asserted that the State had a duty to protect critical infrastructure from potential harm caused by nearby industrial activities. Venegaonkar pointed to news reports of cracks developing on the sea-link as a direct concern related to the petitioners' operations, arguing that immediate preventive action was essential pending a formal assessment.

After hearing the submissions, the Court concluded that the closure orders were precautionary, intended to prevent any potential damage until expert agencies could conduct a thorough investigation. The judge clarified that the existence of cracks and the possible link between the stone-crushing activities and any damage to the bridge would only be determined once the expert reports were submitted.

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.

Case Title: Shridhar Kashinath Bhagat and Ors v SDO Panvel