National Green Tribunal
Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation on 29 November, 2022
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
**********
Original Application No. 28/2020 (WZ)
I.A. No. 83/2020(WZ), I.A. No. 13/2021(WZ),
I.A. No. 14/2021(WZ), I.A. No. 22/2021(WZ) &
I.A. No. 65/2021 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sarang Yadwadkar
R/at: A-9, Pradnyangad Apartments,
S. No. 119/3, Sinhagad Road,
Pune 411030.
2. Anu Aga
Ex. Member of Parliament,
Boat Club Road, Pune- 411001.
3. Arti Kirloskar
453, Gokhale Road, Model Colony,
Pune- 411016.
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Pune Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Shivajinagar, Pune-411 005.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Council Hall, Opposite Poona Club Camp.
Pune, Maharashtra-411 001.
3. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC)
Through the Managing Director,
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110 001.
4. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
Through the Regional Officer,
Pune, Jog Centre, 3rd Floor, Mumbai-Pune Road,
Wakadewadi, Pune 411 003.
5. The Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board,
Jaivavividhta Bhavan,
Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001.
6. Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation (MMRC)
Metro House, 28/2 Anand Nagar,
C. K. Naidu Marg, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440 001.
.....Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 44
Counsel for Applicant:
Mr.Ritwick Dutta, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1
Mr. R. B. Mahabal, Advocate for R-2
Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-4
Mrs. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-5
Mr. S. K. Mishra along-with Mr. Kaustubh Deogade and
Mr. Prahlad Paranjpe, Advocates for R-6
PRESENT:
Hon'bleMr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'bleDr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)
Reserved on : 12.10.2022
Pronounced on : 29.11.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The present Application has been filed under Section under Sections 14, 15 and 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with the prayers that the ongoing construction of the Pune Metro in Mutha riverbed be put on hold till the case is decided; the Respondents be directed to shift the metro alignment away from the riverbed to an alternate alignment as shown in Annexure A-8 of the sanctioned Development Plan of Pune.
2. In the body of the application, it is submitted that the Applicant No. 1 is an architect practicing for the last 40 years, the Applicant No. 2 is an Ex-Member of Parliament and social worker and Applicant No. 3 is an Artist and Social Worker. All the Applicants are residents of Pune who had filed Original Application No. 130/2018 [previously O.A. No. 67/2016 (WZ)] followed by Original Application No. 70/2019 (WZ) [Sarang Yadwadkar & Ors. vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.] before this Tribunal in 2016 and 2019 respectively against the construction of 100 feet wide Page 2 of 44 Riverbed Roads and Metro alignment of about 1.45 Km. and other allied structures on the Prohibitive Zone inside the 'Blue Line' of Mutha and Mula-Mutha rivers within Pune city with several concerns about the effect of the metro construction on the reduction of the carrying capacity of the river and effect on the biodiversity of the river/riverbed. This Tribunal while adjudicating Original Application No. 130/2018, constituted an Expert Committee (to be referred in short as "EC") of experts from the fields of Hydrology, Ecology and Biodiversity and water pollution vide order dated 13.10.2017 and directed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Maharashtra State Bio-Diversity Board, and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to nominate Senior Scientists, one each respectively, to the said Committee. The said EC submitted its report on 05.01.2018, only studying the impact of construction of Metro Rail over 1.45 km. of stretch of riverbed (6% of the total project area) and excluded study the impact of 100 ft. wide roads proposed (94% of the total project area) in the Draft Development Plan inside the blue line of the said rivers. The Applicants filed their objections to the EC report for consideration to this Tribunal which was disposed-of along-with the Original Application vide final order dated 03.08.2018.
3. Thereafter, the Applicants preferred Civil Appeal No. 1059 of 2019 against the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was decided vide order dated 15.02.2019 allowing the Applicants to provide their objections to the Expert Committee for consideration and granting the liberty to them to approach the appropriate forum to raise their grievances to the Report. The Expert Page 3 of 44 Committee heard the Applicants on 13.03.2019 and thereafter, the EC submitted its Report dated 13.06.2019 which was based on unscientific and false data without taking into account the objections raised by the Applicants. This Report was the subject matter of O.A. No. 70/2019 (WZ) filed by the Applicants. The Tribunal vide order dated 05.11.2019 passed the following directions in the said Original Application :-
"4. Since the application primarily alleges non-consideration of the various aspects set out above, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to refer the matter for consideration to the same Committee constituted vide order dated 13.10.2017 in O.A. No. 130/2018 (earlier O.A. No. 67/2017).
5. The Committee shall consider the objections raised by the Applicant and take a decision by a reasoned order. The proceedings may be completed within a period of six weeks.
6. The Applicant shall file a complete set of papers to the Committee for convenient transaction of the proceedings. Let it be done within a period of one week from hence.
7. The Applicant shall appear before the Committee on 20.11.2019 or such other date as the Committee may fix.
8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Members of the Committee forthwith.
9. In the event the Committee is not able to complete the proceedings within the six weeks prescribed herein, they are at liberty to take further period of two weeks."
4. Thereafter, the EC finally submitted its report to the Tribunal, a certified copy of which was received by the Applicants on 21.05.2020.
5. Further, it is submitted that the EC did not carry out hearing till nearly two months after the order and the Applicants' meeting with the EC took place on 16.01.2020. No reason has been given by the Expert Committee for this in-ordinate delay.
6. Further, it is submitted that the concerns raised by the Applicants have been accepted by the Expert Committee regarding Page 4 of 44 lack of scientific impact assessment of the metro construction on Mutha Riverbed, which would raise the flood levels due to the impediments to the natural flow of the river which is reflected from the following excerpt of the report:-
" Initial calculations were based on the dimension of footing, its level, pile cap and pier, provided by MMRCL earlier. Further, MMRCL changed the dimensions which require revised afflux and submergence calculation. EC members has conveyed many times to the committee supervising the progress of Metro construction that Hydrodynamic study of the stretch including 0.5 km upstream and 0.5 downstream (total of 2.45 km) needs to be carried out by MMRCL to assess the impact of metro piers, piles and footings on the flood level rise and submergence. EC members had also suggested that Pune has already experienced many floods in the past (as mentioned by the applicant also) therefore flood frequency analysis as well as hydrologic analysis need to be carried out for afflux and submergence due to 60,000 cusecs and 1,00,000 cusecs with present cross sections and modified cross sections of the riverbed due to footing, pile cap and piers obstruction.
As per site visits, EC members observed a running road in the 1 study stretch of Mutha river which has already changed the river cross-sections. EC recommends that this needs to be included in the cross section geometry of the river in the afflux and submergence scenario. To avoid any confusion, EC members recommends the detailed longitudinal and cross sections survey of the study stretch and additional 0.5 km. stretch in upstream and downstream by MMRCL in consultation with Irrigation Department.
Based on the recent flood and past history of floods in Pune, EC strongly recommends that a fresh hydrodynamic study (two dimensional) is required to assess the impact of metro piers, footings and pile cap on afflux and submergence. EC also recommends that this study need to be conducted by The Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune and all the data and support need to be provided by MMRCL in consultation with Irrigation Department. EC also recommends that there be an immediate action for the preparation of flood alarm and preparedness plan to avoid any mis-happening during flood situation in Pune. Hon'ble NGT may instruct the competent authority to take immediate action on this serious issue."Page 5 of 44
7. The EC also sought an explanation from Respondent No. 9/MMRCL regarding discrepancies in the data provided, to the following effect:-
"MMRCL has to provide the reason and justification for the riverbed width discrepancies and subsequent calculation of flood level rise due to construction of the 59 piers of metro."
8. It is further submitted that these findings of the EC would show that no scientific studies had been carried out to compute the raised afflux levels with the actual cross sections of the river. The EC also recommended a fresh hydrodynamic study at this stage by another organization i.e. Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS). This recommendation would highlight that the Expert Committee had realized that it had completely failed to carry out the flood level impact assessment of the project and failed as experts appointed for this purpose.
9. Further, it is submitted that the construction of metro has reduced the flood carrying capacity of the river leading to the floods in 2019 at the discharge of mere 45,474 cusecs of water. It is in the interest of social safety at large to shift the construction of metro away from the Prohibitive Zone of the said river. The conclusions drawn by the EC are based on false and erroneous data which have highly underestimated the threat of floods. The Applicants were consistently raising these concerns since 2016 and were pressing for additional studies. The following issues were raised by the Applicant:-
(i). The afflux calculations made by the EC are based upon the data provided by Respondent No. 6/MMRCL, though the Page 6 of 44 calculations to be carried out by the EC, were required to be based on information provided by the Irrigation Department, Pune. However, the EC records that the said calculation is done as per the instruction in Original Application No. 130/2018 vide order dated 13.10.2017, point no. 6 & 7 of para 19. The Tribunal vide order dated 13.10.2017 had directed the Committee as follows:-
"6. Respondent No. 1-PMC is directed to furnish copies of the Development Plan of the City of Pune and Metro Rail to the Expert Committee within a week.
7. Respondent No. 6-DMRC Ltd and Respondent No. 9-MMRCL are directed to furnish detailed project report along with environment assessment report, if any, to the Expert Committee within a week."
(ii). However, the EC did not verify or cross check the validity and authenticity of the data before arriving at conclusions despite the fact that the same was received from the Respondent. It is evident from the fact that the average width of the river considered by the EC is 214.55 metres while the average width in the cross sections prepared by Irrigation Department is 171.19 metres. Thus, the EC has considered 25.33% more width than actual, resulting in arriving at unrealistically lower afflux levels. The EC has failed to determine the real impact of the construction on the river bed as the data considered, was un-verified and incorrect. A copy of the comparison of river widths considered by the EC and those as per irrigation department for the cross sections, have been annexed as Annexure A-4 and a graphical representation of the river widths and its impact on the flood levels is also annexed as Annexure A-5. Page 7 of 44
10. Despite the fact that the EC accepted that there was a discrepancy in data provided by the MMRCL, it did not carry out an independent assessment of the same, therefore, the subsequent calculations of the rise in flood level emerges flawed as follows:-
"The considered river widths were provided by MMRCL; which they stated were taken from Irrigation Department. These same widths were used in the mathematical calculation for afflux and submergence as report submitted to Hon'ble National Green Tribunal Pune Bench dated 5/1/2018. After hearing the applicants for discrepancies in the width of the riverbed, EC recommends that MMRCL has to provide the reason and justification for the riverbed widths discrepancies and subsequent calculation of flood level rise due to construction of 59 piers of metro. EC also recommends that MMRCL has to inform Hon'ble NGT for any changes in design, pile cap, footing, alignment etc. after the submission of the report by EC on 04.01.2018. For this, MMRCL has to immediately submit all the relevant data, details, documents, drawings, reports etc. through committee chaired by Hon'ble Divisional Commissioner, Pune as per NGT case No 130/2018 in NGT Principal Bench, New Delhi order dated 03.08.2018."
11. After obtaining the riverbed widths from MMRCL, it was incumbent upon the Expert Committee to investigate and verify it by visiting and checking the site as was specifically directed in the order or by tallying with Irrigation Department cross sections or at least verifying on Google Earth. But, no such efforts were made despite the Tribunal having directed the Committee vide order dated 13.10.2017 to do so. The relevant portion of which is as follows:-
"(a) Visit the site/s of constructions of Metro Rail and proposed roads as indicated in the order;
(b) Take photographs, collect samples and carry out local investigation as deemed necessary by them."
12. The Metro alignment shown in the sanctioned Development Plan maps is away from the river bed than what is being implemented. This massive discrepancy could have been identified Page 8 of 44 only if the Expert Committee had studied the DP maps or had visited the site.
13. The Expert Committee had carried out a deficient analysis of the flooding capacity which is evident from the fact that the afflux due to proposed metro piers was calculated, based on the data provided by MMRCL and that after hearing the applicant's version regarding discrepancies in the riverbed widths, the EC recommended a fresh hydrodynamic study to be conducted to assess the impact of metro construction on rise in flood level and submergence. The Expert Committee merely signed the calculations provided by Respondent No. 6/ MMRCL and after hearing the objections raised by the Applicants, the Expert Committee determined that a fresh hydrodynamic study was required as it had failed to assess the real impact of the construction on the free flow of water as well as flooding. The EC has stated that it had monitored the impact on biodiversity and that only 7 trees had been transplanted to other field, survival rate of which was 65%. But the impact of Metro construction on the biodiversity of the river bed has not been studied. The Expert Committee has merely stated that the biodiversity is to be seen as per trees transplanted. The EC has also failed to carry out groundwater recharge study which is explicitly mentioned in the report and sought it's further study from MMCRL.
14. The Expert Committee has not studied the impact of other projects as directed by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.11.2017. The EC has recorded that it was not aware of the built-up road that lay on the upstream side of the metro piers. Though it is discovered Page 9 of 44 that there is a road running along Mutha river bed which was also not considered in the afflux calculations (this road was in existence for the last 15 years which is seen in the Development Plan of Pune which was provided to EC). It was very clear that the environmental impact of the Metro construction would be much more than anticipated, as no cumulative impact assessment had been carried out. The EC was of the opinion that there was additional flow from drains and nallahs, therefore, they ought to have been considered the same in the afflux calculations in the first report itself.
15. The EC has not considered the ramifications of the floods in 2019 in Pune city despite the fact that the Applicants had raised concerns about it pointing out that the blue line of the Mutha river defined at 60,000 Cusecs, was breached around and upstream of metro construction site at the discharge of mere 45,474 Cusecs of water and it was also pointed out by the Applicants that the said rise happened only due to the impediments of metro construction. But instead of responding to the concern, the Expert Committee vaguely stated that the instances of breach of blue line at many locations were a result of discharges of 45,474 cusecs from dam and additional flow from downstream drains and nallahs in the Mutha River. It is in direct contravention with the recommendation of the EC advising hydrodynamic study.
16. An alternative alignment away from the riverbed ought to have been considered because very easily the metro alignment could be shifted away from the riverbed over a 120 feet width road which runs parallel to the river which would ensure that the flood carrying Page 10 of 44 capacity of the river remained protected and the said alignment would also be closer to the commercial district which would be beneficial for the citizen using the metro. This alignment is also shown in the sanctioned Development Plan map of Pune.
17. Apart from above, it is further submitted by the Applicants that they have placed reliance upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, reported in [(1999) 2 SCC 718] where-in precautionary principle is emphasized to be adopted merely on suspicion of risk.
18. It is further submitted in the affidavit filed on 15.11.2021 that this Tribunal had passed an order dated 11.07.2013 in O.A. No. 2 of 2013 (Sarang Yadwadkar and Ors. v. The Commissioner, PMC and Ors.), directing PMC to ensure that no future construction is done within the blue line of the river, the relevant paragraph is quoted here-in below:-
"38.(g) As already noticed and highlighted during the course of the hearing, a large number of structures have come up at and even inside the blue line of the river Mutha. Respondent No. 1 itself has issued notice to some of such structures for demolition. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we further direct that Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 shall take appropriate steps against unauthorized constructions, if any, raised on and inside the blue line and pass order of demolition or such order as is permissible in accordance with law. We also direct the said authorities to ensure that no encroachment is permitted and no construction in future is permitted on and inside the blue line of the river Mutha."
19. In the affidavit dated 11.02.2022, it is submitted by the Applicant No. 1 that the Report dated 11.01.2021 of Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) indicates the following water spread for discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s:-
Page 11 of 44
Location Water Spread Water Spread Additional Water After introduction Before introduction spread due of Metro Pier (M) of Metro Pier (M) to metro construction (M) P 159 285.24 263.04 22.20 (73 Ft.) P 160 283.31 262.70 20.61 (68 Ft.) Z Bridge 325.40 295.56 29.84 (98 Ft.) P 167 287.39 222.63 55.76 (183 Ft.) and therefore, the impugned project will lead to submergence of very large section of the city. As per the CWPRS's report, there could be submergence to the level of 183 feet at same locations, if the impugned project is allowed to operate. That the version of Respondent No. 6 to the effect that the threshold for 60,000 cusecs of discharge has been breached 4 times in the last 56 years, would show that on an average once in every 14 years, such kind of discharge would happen, therefore, there is a high risk of submergence of certain areas in the city of Pune.
20. After the filing of this application on the very first day i.e. on 07.07.2020, a Committee was constituted comprising Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC); Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB); Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (MMRC); and Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) with Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) being the nodal agency to submit a joint report. The notices were directed to be issued to the Respondents. The service affidavit dated 17.09.2020 is annexed at page nos. 95-97 of the paper book which shows that all the Respondents have been served.
Page 12 of 44
21. The record reveals that even before any report could be filed by the said Committee, the order constituting the Committee has been cancelled by a subsequent order of this Tribunal dated 18.11.2021 passed in I.A. No. 126/2020 (WZ)
22. In response to the notice served upon the Respondents, only Respondent No.1/PMC and Respondent No. 6/MMRCL have filed their reply affidavits as well as additional affidavit etc. and none-else.
23. The stand taken by the Respondent No. 1/PMC is as follows:-
(i). There is no alternate alignment available in the Development Plan of Pune. The alignment of the Metro Railway is sanctioned under Section 32 of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, which has been placed on record by the Respondent No. 6. In the alignment shown in the Development Plan, it is stated that Metro is the authority which can decide the feasibility and finalization of the alignment, which is sanctioned by the Central Government. In the case in hand, the Central Government has sanctioned the alignment after considering the feasibility and all other necessary parameters, therefore, it cannot be said that the tentative alignment shown in the Development Plan, be considered as a final alignment or that the metro should be shifted on the basis of the tentative alignment. Moreover, the sanctioned alignment is not under challenge. As regards the flooding of the rivers flowing within Pune, the same is Page 13 of 44 also being addressed holistically by the answering Respondent and has proposed several new Sewage Treatment Plants to ensure that rivers are not polluted.
The answering Respondent has prepared a detailed project for rejuvenation of the river Mula, Mutha and Mula-Mutha flowing through the City of Pune and also obtained an Environmental Clearance for the said project, which has been challenged by the Applicant No. 1 before this Tribunal in Appeal No.12/2020 (WZ).
(ii). The Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Detailed Project Report prepared for rejuvenation of the rivers are a part of the Environment Clearance. The river rejuvenation project is planned by the answering Respondent, in order to address the issue of pollution of rivers as well as reduction of water carrying capacity of it for 44 kms. within the City of Pune. The said project is a comprehensive plan with the following key objectives -(1) Clean the river and make it pollution free; (2) Reduce the risk of flooding; (3) Create a continuous public realm along the river; (4) Retain Water; (5) Improve city's connectivity to the river; (6) Integrate existing heritage structures, recreational, religious and socio-cultural activities. This project envisions creation of public greens (parks, gardens, urban forests) which will enhance the green cover of the city and carefully designed embankments along the river which will reduce the risk of flooding. The project does not include any residential or Page 14 of 44 commercial development along the riverbanks and the project proposes to remove obstructions to the flow of water, reduce rugosity co-efficient and streamline the river. These steps will ensure that the cross currents within the river are prevented and will increase the conveyance carrying capacity of the river, reduce the rugosity co-efficient by removal of obstructions like low level bridges, check dams, infrastructure elements like manholes, pipelines, etc. within the river bed. This project proposes to protect low-lying areas along the river from flooding by constructing 92.5 kms. embankments along the entire project area of 44 kms. of river stretch. Three kinds of embankments have been proposed namely, "Engineered Section" of 19.8 km. length for the intensely developed core city areas, "Urban Riparian Section" of 38.8 km. for moderately developed city areas and "Rural Riparian Section" of 33.9 km. for the sparsely developed outskirts of the city. The proposed embankments will concur with the re-defined 25 year (blue line) and 100 year flood (red line) and ensure that the 25 year and 100 year flood lines as defined by Irrigation Department, are contained within the river prism.
(iii). The project proposes to lay an interceptor sewer, which will divert the sewage to the nearest Sewage Treatment Plant. The answering Respondent had also started implementing the projects for installing additional Sewage Treatment capacity in order to arrest flow of sewage into Page 15 of 44 the rivers which will divert drainage to the nearest Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and will also ensure drastic reduction in pollution levels of the river and also create space for easy flow of rain water. Under the programme initiated by the National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD), the Mula, Mutha and Mula-Mutha rivers have received funding from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to augment the sewerage network and the STP capacity. Out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 990.26 Cr., Rs.57.74 Cr. funding has been received till September 2021 and in the package one of the tender, approximately 18 km. of sewer lines have been laid in Baner Balewadi area while the work is in progress. All these will reduce inundation and afflux, to a great extent, and decrease the pollution of rivers.
24. The stand taken by the Respondent No. 6/MMRCL is as follows as related in affidavit dated 24.09.2020 :-
(i). It is submitted that the case of the Applicant in the present Original Application is based on an Expert Committee Report being claimed by the Applicant to be a final report given by the said Committee on 21.05.2020.
The present application is third round of litigation against the Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd./Respondent No. 6, where-in the cause of action and the area in dispute pertains to 1.5 km stretch of Metro corridor (Vanaz- Ramwadi) running through the blue line of river Page 16 of 44 Mutha, consisting of two stations namely Deccan and Sambhaji Park in the city of Pune. The answering Respondent is the Executing Agency of the Pune Metro Rail Project. The alignment of the metro rail in Pune is notified by the Central Government under the Provisions of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. Out of the said route, the stretch in dispute is on elevated pillars which has been selected and approved after considering all required parameters in accordance with the Provisions of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (to be referred here-in-after in short as Act of 1978).
(ii). The Original Application No. 67/2016 (renumbered as O.A. No. 130/2018) was filed by the Applicant, challenging the said route, which was disposed of vide Judgment dated 03.08.2018 by the Principal Bench of NGT in which reliance was placed upon the Expert Committee's report dated 05.01.2018, which was constituted under the order of the NGT dated 13.10.2017 passed in the said Original Application No. 130/2018. The Applicant has annexed the order dated 13.10.2017 but not the final order dated 03.08.2018 disposing off the Application. But the same shall be completed by following all the safeguards suggested by the Expert Committee. It was directed that the Committee will inspect the ongoing project once in two months and if any further directions are given by the Committee, the Project Proponent will be Page 17 of 44 bound by the same. The Divisional Commissioner of Pune will associate with the Committee and supervise the project specifically the environmental aspects. It will be open to the Applicants or any other stakeholders to continue to give their suggestions to the Committee so that any damage likely to be caused to the environment, can be minimized or prevented. In case it was found that the Project Proponents are not complying with the directions of the Expert Committee, the Committee will be at liberty to bring the same to the notice of this Tribunal by moving an appropriate application.
(iii). Being aggrieved by the said order dated 03.08.2018, the Applicant approached the Hon'ble Apex Court which vide order dated 15.2.2019 permitted the Applicant to raise his grievances before the Expert Committee constituted in the said matter. It is in accordance with this order that the Applicant had approached the Expert Committee raising various grievances principally against the report submitted by the Expert Committee on 05.01.2018 in view of the NGT's earlier order. It appears that the Applicant's case is that his grievances were not addressed by the Expert Committee because of which the Applicant filed a Second Original Application No. 70/2019 before the NGT, assailing the report of the Committee. Vide order dated 05.11.2019, the NGT directed the Applicants to place his grievance before the Expert Committee. Thereafter on Page 18 of 44 16.01.2020, the Applicant was called by the Committee for submitting various documents for placing his grievances.
(iv). In view of order dated 03.08.2018, the Divisional Commissioner has been regularly supervising the Pune Metro Project and in its fourth Meeting held on 20.11.2019, the Expert Committee has given various recommendations/directions to the answering Respondent/Project Proponent.
(v). The Applicant was heard by the Committee and the grievances raised by him were considered on 21.05.2020, there-after various recommendations were given by the Expert Committee to the answering Respondent, which also formed part of the minutes of meeting dated 20.11.2019. The said directions have been assailed again by the Applicant treating it as a final report in the third round of litigation in the present Original Application. The Applicant has totally misconstrued the nature of the recommendations. In the said recommendations, the Expert Committee has called upon the answering Respondent to submit its say and to provide details about various parameters which were stated in the said report, therefore, the said report cannot be called to be a final report at all. After receipt of the said recommendations of the Expert Committee, the answering Respondent started gathering various information and provided the same to the Expert Committee by way of detailed submissions Page 19 of 44 along-with the necessary data and documents. Considering the facts that the apprehension of the Applicant was with regard to the flooding and submergence of the metro pillars and crossing of the blue line, one of the recommendations made by the Expert Committee was that a fresh hydrodynamic study (two dimensional) is required to assess the impact of metro piers, footings and pile cap on afflux and submergence due to the recent flood and past history of floods in Pune. The study was recommended to be conducted by the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune and all the data and support needs to be provided by MMRCL in consultation with Irrigation Department. In compliance with the same, the answering Respondent has supplied all necessary materials to CWPRS and the final report is awaited which is evident from their letter dated July, 2020 as it got delayed due to pandemic. There are recommendations issued by the Expert Committee along- with MMRCL's response which are as follows:-
Sr. Recommendation of MMRCL's Response
No. the Expert
Committee
1. The Expert Committee i. Subsequent to NGT order dated
has stated that 3/8/2018, in the earlier round of
MMRCL has to litigation bearing O.A. No. 67 of 16
provide the reason (renumbered as OA No.130/2018), an
and justification for Expert Committee meeting chaired by
the riverbed widths Hon'ble Divisional Commissioner, Pune
discrepancies and was convened on 20/11/2019. The subsequent Minutes of Meeting and more particularly calculation of flood point No.5 - column No.3 directed the levels rise due to answering respondent to verify the river construction of 59 dimensions with the Irrigation piers of Metro. EC Department of the State of Maharashtra also recommends and provide appropriate computations in Page 20 of 44 that MMRCL has to case of discrepancy.
inform Hon'ble NGT
ii. Thereafter for complying with the
for any changes in
directions, the answering respondent
design, pile cap,
approached the Irrigation Department,
footing, alignment etc.
State of Maharashtra seeking fresh data
after the submission
of cross section and discharge vide letter of report by EC on no. Maha-Metro/Pune/ENV/02 dated 04.01.2018. For this 21/11/2019. Hereto annexed and MMRCL has to marked as Exhibit "4" is a copy of the immediately submit letter dated 21/11/2019 and the data all the relevant data, received from the irrigation department. I details, documents, say that upon receipt of data from drawings, reports etc. Irrigation Department, the revised through committee Hydrological Simulation Study by HEC chaired by Hon'ble RAS for revised structural changes in Divisional 2.45 km including 0.5 km upstream & Commissioner, Pune 0.5 km downstream stretch was as per NGT case conducted and the detailed technical No.130/2018 in NGT note on various aspects was submitted Principal Bench, New to the Expert committee via e-mail dated Delhi order dated on 5/12/2019. Hereto annexed and 03.08.2018.
marked as Exhibit "5" is a copy of the technical note submitted to the Expert Committee by MMRCL vide email dated 5/12/2019. I say that thus the answering respondent has taken proper steps to comply with directions of Expert Committee expeditiously.
2. In the ELI report i. I say that the Ground water recharge ground water study was carried out by Savitribai recharge was not Phule Pune University and is referred to mentioned hence EC in section 3.7 (Pages 62-125 ) of the recommends that Environmental Impact Assessment and MMRCL have to Hydraulic Studies of River report provide the submitted to the Expert Committee. assessment report on Vertical Electrical soundings were ground water carried out at 14 different locations to recharge in the study understand the shallow subsurface stretch from Ground geological and aquifer conditions Water Department of extending up to >30 meters depth. This Government of has also been summarized in the Maharashtra". Executive Summary of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Hydraulic Studies of River Report.
ii. With reference to Geology, the Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) shows that the strata below soil are not favourable to form aquifer. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "6" is relevant portion of the Electrical Resistivity data of the Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) measurements carried out. However, unconfined aquifer reported from the project area has poor potential. It is Page 21 of 44 envisaged that construction of Piers on the bank are not likely to cause significant impact on any aquifers.
Natural springs are not observed in the area during the study period. Hence no adverse impacts during construction phase are envisaged on existing hydrogeological Condition.
iii. Further, Maha Metro has an existing Memorandum of Understanding with the Ground Water Surveys & Development Agency (GSDA) dated on 25/11/2018 for a duration of five years. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "7" is a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference dated 25/11/2018, executed between MMRCL and the GWSDA. The GWSDA will provide all the technical help while implementing the Rainwater harvesting as stated below:
a. Undertake the Activities for comprehensive hydrological surveys and geo physical surveys.
b. Supervision of Rainwater Harvesting structures during construction period, as per the progress/implementation status submitted by Maha Metro Pune to GSDA for onsite monitoring.
c. To finalise the feasible sites for rain water harvesting structures in the area d. Recharge activity for the entire stretch will be undertaken with the guidance of GSDA including their supervision. This will also apply to the stations of Sambhaji and Deccan station.
3. Initial Calculations i. Upon structural changes, the afflux and were based on the submergence calculation was revised in dimension of footing, study using HEC RAS 4.0 Beta Software and the results have been shared with its level, pile cap and Expert committee via E-mail and by a pier, provided by formal letter Maha-
MMRCL earlier. Metro/Pune/EMD/C01 dated
Further MMRCL 15/7/2020.
changed the ii. Water afflux and submergence at a
dimensions, which discharge of 100,000 cusecs and 60,000
require revised afflux cusec is presented in below Table:
and submergence Sr. Flow in cusec Max. Location Max.
calculations. Water of afflux submergence
Afflux (in m)
1 100,000cusecs 180 P-160,P- DE-7-4.158
161,P162
2 60,000Cusecs 180 P168 P175-2.736
4. EC members has
conveyed many times i. I say that the Blue line and Red line to the committee provide the data for discharge of 60,000 cusecs and 100,000 cusecs without the Page 22 of 44 supervising the metro pillars. The results of the progress of Metro Hydrological Simulation Study by HEC Construction that RAS 4.0 Beta Software for revised structural changes proposed in 2.45 km Hydrodynamic study including 0.5km upstream & 0.5 km of the stretch downstream stretch with reference to including 0.5 km afflux and submergence has been upstream and 0.5 submitted to Expert committee via E-mail downstream (total on 5/12/2019 and by a formal letter 2.45 km )is need to Maha-Metro/Pune/EMD/CO I dated be carried out by 15/7/2020 (enclosed hereinabove) and also given in Table stated above.
MMRCL to assess the impact of metro piers, piles and footings on the flood level rise and submergence ,EC members had also suggested that Pune has already experienced many floods in the past (as mentioned by the applicant also) therefore flood frequency analysis as well as hydrologic analysis need to be carried out for afflux and submergence due to 60,000 cusecs and 100,000 cusecs with present cross sections and modified cross sections of the river bed due to footings, pile cap and pier obstruction".
5. To avoid any i. As per the suggestions of the Expert confusion, Expert committee members, this study has been committee members awarded to Central Water & Power Research Station (CWPRS) in the month of recommends the December, 2019. The CWPRS proposal detailed longitudinal states that this study has to be completed and cross sections in 4 months' timeline but due to pandemic survey of the study situations, the work has been stuck and stretch and study could not be completed so far. additional 0.5km MMRCL is pursuing this matter with stretch in upstream CWPRS for earliest completion of the study. Hereto annexed and marked as and downstream by Exhibit "9" is a copy of the letter dated MMRCL in 13/7/2020 received from CWPRS for consultation with extension of time.
Irrigation Department.
Page 23 of 44
(vi). Thereafter, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune had conducted a meeting on 24.09.2020 to review the compliances of the answering Respondent, where-in it considered the detailed study of the impact of the project in the said stretch and the recommendations given by the Expert Committee and acceptance of the recommendations and actions taken by the answering Respondent, have been considered.
(vii). It is apparent that the answering Respondent has followed the recommendations by adopting measures. The CWPRS has also given its preliminary report on the afflux levels during discharge of 60,000 cusecs and 100,000 cusecs. The CWPRS in the said meeting stated that for the preparation of submergence map, a Digital elevation Model is required which is developed using properly oriented cross section data. The orientation of such cross section data is awaited and that the final report will be submitted by the 15th November, 2020 which will include the feasibility measures for mitigating afflux levels. The Committee also opined that the metro work can continue and that the answering Respondent has provided all the reports as directed by the Committee in its earlier meeting and that the answering Respondent was taking due care of the construction. It is evident that MMRCL has been continuously following up on all suggestions/ recommendations made by the Committee. The Expert Committee be allowed to go through all the data that Page 24 of 44 MMRCL has submitted including the last part of CWPRS report which is awaited and that after hearing by the concerned parties, the Expert Committee shall prepare the final report which can be submitted to the NGT. Therefore, it is submitted that the reliefs sought by the Applicant in the Original Application are misconceived as they are based on the assumption as if the final report has been prepared by the Expert Committee, where-as the fact is that the Expert Committee is monitoring the project in terms of the NGT order dated 03.08.2018 and the final report is yet to be filed.
(viii). Further, it is submitted that it is not the domain of the Applicant to decide as to which alignment the answering Respondent should follow. It is emphasized that the present alignment has been notified by the Government of India.
(ix). In the affidavit dated 05.10.2021, it is submitted that the answering Respondent has annexed a report prepared by the Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) along-with the recommendations of the Expert Committee meeting dated 08.03.2021. Further inputs were obtained from CWPRS by drawing attention to Table No. 7, where-in water spread at Metro Pier No. 167 was shown to be 55.76 meter at a discharge of 1,00,000 cusecs of water. The water-spread only at this pier was much more in comparison to the water spread at Pier No. Page 25 of 44 166 and 168. Therefore, the answering Respondent requested the CWPRS to provide a study to elucidate the reason for such spread and suggest possible flood protection measures to contain the eventuality. The CWPRS responded by saying that the Mathematical Model Studies for estimating the afflux and increase in water spread width of Mutha River in Pune City area due to construction of metro piers were already carried out by CWPRS and accordingly, report was submitted and there- after on the request of the answering Respondent, CWPRS had critically examined the data, ground conditions and simulations to find out the exact cause for the sudden increase in water spread at Pier No.167. It was observed that at the cross section on the right bank a road connecting the low level river bank road to the Kelkar road was existing.
(x). There were also high level retaining walls on the right bank of upstream and downstream cross sections except on the road width. During the high floods, water might spread along the connecting road up to the road level where the water surface elevation was meeting and this was the reason for the exceptionally high water spread.
(xi). It was suggested by CWPRS that if the road was blocked by continuing the upstream and downstream retaining walls, the water spread could be contained. The simulations were conducted for the above scenario and it Page 26 of 44 was observed that the increase in water spread was of the order of less than 4.0 meters along the left bank and that there was no significant change in water levels and afflux.
(xii). At four Piers as stated in the CWPRS Report, the water afflux at discharge of 60,000 cusecs was marginal, however, water afflux at discharge of 1,00,000 cusecs was higher and accordingly, the answering Respondent had suggested that the matter may be examined by the Respondent No. 1/Pune Municipal Corporation and necessary inputs in that regard for the purpose of construction of retaining wall at the location suggested by the CWPRS was sought. This may permanently block the access to the Kelkar Road. As regards the piers where there was marginal increase, the answering Respondent requested to examine whether the height of the existing retaining wall could be increased to contain the water spread which would be an effective measure to avoid any untoward incidents and also requested the Respondent No.1/Pune Municipal Corporation to consider incorporating it in the River Rejuvenation Project which is underway and suggested that if the Respondent No. 1 could incorporate the suggestions of CWPRS for containing of water spread at Pier No.167 as part of their mitigating measures, the same would be effective.
(xiii). As regards to change of alignment of the Metro Rail, it is submitted that Applicants have not challenged the Page 27 of 44 alignment of Metro, therefore, in view of above, the request cannot be considered, however, such challenge would stand time barred, as the alignment was fixed in the year 2018 itself.
(xiv). In the affidavit dated 04.01.2022, it is submitted by the answering Respondent that in the last 56 years, the discharge of 60,000 cusecs of water had only been breached 4 times and that the discharge of 1,00,000 cusecs had not been breached even once as is pointed out in the CWPRS report. The answering Respondent had specifically asked from CWPRS, the reason for such a spread of 55.76m at P-167 as opposed to 3.16m at P-166 and 1.23m at P-168 at a discharge of 1,00,000 cusecs (Table no. 7 of the CWPRS Report) and it was explained that due to the natural topography of the place, in view of an existing road at the cross section of the right bank which connects the low bank of upstream and downstream cross sections except for the road width and during floods i.e. only if there is 1,00,000 cusecs discharge, then the waters would spread along the connecting road upto the road level where the water surface elevation meets, leading to a high water spread.
(xv). It is further submitted that the project is an essential project for meeting the needs of the population and for providing an important mode of commutation in Pune. The veracity of the submergence map as prepared by the Page 28 of 44 Applicants is denied by the answering Respondent since there is no verification by a Competent Expert about the submergence plan map nor the Applicant is an expert in this field.
(xvi). It is further submitted that the the water spread at Metro Pier No 167 which was shown to be 55.76 m. at a discharge of 1,00,000 cusecs (Table no. 7 of the CWPRS Report) such a large discharge has never occurred in the last 56 years.
25. Apart from the above pleadings in the form of written statement filed on 14.10.2022, it is submitted by the answering Respondent that the role of Maha-Metro is a distinct and different from the existing local body namely the Pune Municipal Corporation and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. These local bodies are empowered statutorily by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP Act) and are vested with the powers under the Constitution of India to look into the needs in the areas within their jurisdiction. In so far as rivers are concerned, the State Government has also an Irrigation Department and other concerned Departments with independent funds allocations and responsibilities.
26. On the other hand, the answering Respondent only conducts its work and functions under two Acts namely, Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act 1978 and Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002. The roles and responsibilities of Maha- Metro are well defined under the above two Acts which shows that Page 29 of 44 the maintenance of rivers or ancillary waters bodies used for the purpose of Metro work, is not within the purview of their duty. The Metro project is financed by international funding agencies namely EIB (European Investment Bank) and AFD (Agence Francaise de Development) which needs to be re-paid in a period of 20 years along-with the interest accrued. Apart from that the Government of India and Government of Maharashtra have also provided subordinate debt which is to be re-paid in 5 years along-with interest accrued after the international loans are paid back. Both the funding agencies and the Government make periodical monetary review as well as review of the status of work and progress of the Metro Rail Project to ensure that their funds are being used strictly for the purposes for which they are allocated. The Maha-Metro is bound by the mandate approved in the DPR and therefore, the maintenance of the said river by the answering Respondent squarely falls outside the technical scope and budget for the approved DPR.
27. The answering Respondent is not an expert agency for the said river maintenance purpose, as it is dealing in the work of construction, operation and maintenance of the Metro station and its ancillary structures. Therefore, there is no scope of surplus revenue to commit to this Court to maintain the entire stretch of the river or to maintain even the limited stretch of river in the corridor of work.
28. On the basis of above pleadings, we have to see as to whether the prayer sought by the Applicant that the ongoing construction of the Pune Metro in Mutha Riverbed should be kept on hold and that Page 30 of 44 its alignments should be shifted, can be allowed by this Tribunal or nor?
29. From the side of Respondent No. 6/MMRCL, learned Senior Counsel Shri S. K. Mishra has drawn our attention to the order of this Tribunal dated 03.08.2018 passed in Original Application No. 130 of 2018 [Sarang Yadwadkar & Ors. vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.] where-in prayer was made to pass restraint order against the Respondents from proposing, planning, approving or constructing any road/metro or structures of any other type in prohibited zone inside the blue line in the riverbed of Mula, Mutha and Mula-Mutha river or any other river and that direction be issued to stop the ongoing procedural work of riverbed road and Metro project in the interest of environment, social safety and resources of the public exchequer. In view of precautionary principle, this application was moved under Sections 14, 15 and 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. In this Original Application, on 03.08.2018 following order was passed:-
"15. As noted above, the Expert Committee has concluded that impact of construction of piers for metro rail on river Hydrology is insignificant, considering the level of discharge in the river due to rise in afflux from 2 to 12 mm and increased submergence from 3 to 23 mm considering the level of discharge in the river. Recommendations of the Committee which the project proponent has undertaken to comply include compensatory afforestation, cleaning of drain and installing dust sensors.
16. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it will not be in public interest to prohibit the project. However, the project may be completed by following all the safeguards suggested by the Expert Committee. We also direct that the Committee will inspect the ongoing project once in two months and if any further directions are given by the Committee, the Project Proponent will be bound by the same.
18. As regards, the construction of 100 Ft. wide proposed road, learned Counsel for Pune Municipal Corporation has Page 31 of 44 stated that the road was proposed but no steps have been taken so far. The Expert Committee has stated that the Committee could not assess the actual location of piers and its impact on the river bed. Construction of road around 7.4 km. may have major impact on multiple parameters of the environment. The Committee recommended as follows:-
Comprehensive 3D mapping of the region using drone based 360 degree survey.
Superimposition of road alignment and construction activity on current features to visualize impacts. Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan based on analysis of alternatives."
19. We make it clear that as and when proposed 100 Ft. wide road is taken up, the recommendations of the Committee will be fully complied with and the Committee will assess the actual location of piers and its impact on river bed."
30. Thereafter, he drew attention to the order dated 15.02.2019 of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1054 OF 2019 (SARANG YADWADKAR & ORS. vs. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.) which was preferred against the said order dated 03.08.2018, which is quoted here-in below:-
"We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is admitted that the appellants' view has not been taken into account by the Committee constituted for the purpose of this project. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct that the Committee shall give a hearing to the appellants on a fixed date and consider the objections and the evidence produced by them in their support. The Committee shall thereupon accommodate the appellants' objections and suggest any suitable modification, if required, which shall be carried out by the respondent-Authorities. If the Committee does not uphold the objections it may give reasons. In that case, the appellants may approach the National Green Tribunal. The appellants shall be entitled to resort to any remedy available to them in law.
We consider it appropriate to observe that the matter should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the fact that this is a funded project which needs to be completed according to the schedule in public interest. The civil appeal and all pending applications are disposed of in the above terms."
31. Having cited those two orders, it is argued by him that the same relief which is being prayed before this Tribunal in the present Page 32 of 44 Original Application, had been prayed earlier before this Tribunal through Original Application No. 130/2018, therefore, a fresh application for the same cause could not have been moved. Moreover, he prays that the Hon'ble Apex Court had very clearly directed that the Committee shall give a hearing to the Applicants on a fixed date and consider the objections and evidence produced by the Applicants in their support. The Committee shall there-upon accommodate the Applicants' objections and suggest suitable modification, if required, which shall be carried out by the Respondent Authorities. If the Committee does not uphold objections, it may give reasons. In that case, the Applicants may approach the NGT. The Applicants shall be entitle to resort to any remedy available to them in law. Therefore, it is urged that the Hon'ble Apex Court had given opportunity to the Applicants to approach the Committee for redressal of their grievances but in- stead of doing that, they have come straight to this Tribunal without waiting for the resolution of the dispute or redressal of the grievances of the Applicants by the said Committee. Therefore on this count, this application deserves to be dismissed.
32. He has also drawn attention to the affidavit shown by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune dated 22.06.2021 annexed at page nos. 718-719 of the paper book, where-in it is submitted that in compliance with the order of this Tribunal dated 28.09.2020, he had submitted a copy of the Final Report submitted by Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune dated 12.02.2021. The Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner had considered the matter and was of the opinion Page 33 of 44 that the CWPRS had given its report based on simulations studies to estimate afflux due to construction of metro piers along the Mutha river bank. It also considered the study of extended cross section based on drone survey for discharges of 1,00,000 and 60,000 cusecs of water. It also considered in its minutes that the CWPRS Scientist had pointed out that in the last 56 years, the discharge of 60,000 cusecs had only been breached four times and the discharge of 1,00,000 cusecs has not been breached even once. The Committee also noted that the Irrigation Department and the Smart City Project have a robust flood alarm evacuation system to avoid loss of life and property and it also observed that the Maha Metro was taking utmost care during construction of the project and complying all the guidelines issued by the Expert Committee. The final report of Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) is annexed as Exhibit 'A', where-in relevant part is reproduced here-in below:-
"5.1 Simulation studies without Metro Piers Initial simulation studies were conducted to obtain water surface elevations without the Metro Piers. The existing bridges in the river Mutha were incorporated in the model. The studies were conducted for two river discharges of 60,000 ft3/s and 1,00,000 ft3/s corresponding to blue and red line respectively. The results presented in the report are restricted to the study reach of river Mutha between Garware Bridge and Shivaji Bridge covering the Metro Piers and infrastructure. The computed water surface elevations were compared with blue line and red line provided by the Irrigation department. The results are plotted in the Figure 4. The simulated water surface elevations are above the red line in the reach between Sambhaji bridge and Shivaji bridge for the discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s. This may be attributed to the restricted cross section data. The cross sections may not be covering the entire flood plain where the water is likely to spread for larger area along both the banks thereby reducing the flood levels in actual site conditions. The representation of some of the bridge data in the model may also be incorrect. It was observed that the computed water surface elevation is about 0.74 m. above the red line near/in the vicinity of Shinde Bridge. The results obtained were also compared with the blue line. Similar trend as described above is observed for Page 34 of 44 this condition also, wherein simulated water surface elevations are above the blue line provided by the Irrigation Department. The computed water surface profile is about 1.5 m. above the blue line near/in the vicinity of Shinde Bridge.
5.2 Simulation studies with Metro Piers The Metro Pier and related infrastructure works were also incorporated in the model. These simulations indicate the afflux induced due to construction of the Metro Piers. Figure 5 shows the Metro Pier near the Sambhaji Bridge and Figure 6 shows Metro Pier with the cap protruding above the ground surface near Gadgil (Z) Bridge incorporated in the model. The simulations were conducted for two river discharges of 60,000 and 1,00,000 ft3/s. The computed water surfaces from these simulations were compared with the previously simulated water surface elevations.
The results are plotted in the Figure 7(a) and (b) for the discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s. The water surface elevations and afflux are given in Table 1. It was observed that in the study reach, efflux varies from 50 to 100 mm in the reach between Shivaji and Shinde bridges. Further in the upstream reach between Shinde bridge and Metro Pier DE 8, afflux varies between 150 to 250 mm. The afflux upstream of the Baba Bhide bridge is in the range of 340 to 350 mm with the maximum afflux of 380 mm observed at pier No. P152.
The results for the discharge of 60,000 ft3/s are also plotted in the Figure 8(a) and (b). The water surface elevations and afflux are given in Table 2. It was observed that in the study reach, afflux is the range of 60 to 100 mm in the reach between Shivaji and Shinde bridges. Further in the upstream reach between Shinde bridge and Metro Pier DE 8 afflux varies between 150 to 240 mm. The efflux upstream of the Baba Bhide bridge is in the range of 200 to 250 mm with the maximum efflux of 290 mm observed at pier No. P153.
5.3 Additional simulations with aerial survey data The results of the initial simulations with available data were discussed in the meeting held at Divisional Commissioner Office on 24.09.2020. The issue of the restricted cross sections was discussed during the meeting. The cross section data used in the studies were cross verified with the Irrigation Department to check the width of cross sections. It was found that the data used in the model is in agreement with the Irrigation data. It was decided to conduct additional survey covering both the banks of river Mutha to overcome the problem of restricted cross section data. Owing to time restriction, aerial survey using the drone was conducted by MMRCL. This data was provided to CWPRS to utilize in further studies. The data was provided in the cross section (Figure 9) and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) format.
5.3.1 Simulation studies using aerial survey data and existing bridges Page 35 of 44 The cross sections obtained from the aerial survey was incorporated in the model. The old cross sections provided by the Irrigation Department in the reach between the chainage 11430 m to 13800 m were replaced with cross sections obtained from the aerial survey. The simulations were performed for the discharges of 60000 ft3/s and 1,00,000 ft3/s corresponding to blue and red line respectively. The results are plotted in Figure 10 and given in Table 3 and Table 4. The water level in the Metro Pier reach varies from 546.13 m to 547.50 m for the discharge of 600O0 ft3/s and from 548.67 m to 549.68 m for the discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s.
5.3.2 Simulation studies using aerial survey data along with Metro Piers The cross sections obtained from the aerial survey was incorporated in the model. The old cross section data provided by the Irrigation Department in the reach between the chainage 11430 m to 13800 m was replaced with cross sections obtained from the aerial survey. The simulations were performed for the discharges of 60000 ft3/s and 1,00,000 ft3/s corresponding to blue and red line respectively. The results are plotted in Figure 11 and given in Table 3 and Table 4. The water level in the Metro Pier reach varies from 546.13 m to 547.70 m for the discharge of 60O00 ft3/s and from 548.67 m to 549.90 m for the discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s.
The water surface profiles for the discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s with and without the Metro Piers are plotted in the Figure 11(a) and Figure 11(b). The water surface elevations and afflux at bridges and Metro Piers are given in Table 5. The results indicate that there is reduction in the afflux in the study reach because of the extended cross sections obtained from aerial survey. The afflux is lowered by an average of about 50 mm in the reach between Shivaji and Shinde bridge and the afflux at present with extended cross sections is in the range of 0 to 30 mm. In the reach between Shinde bridge and Metro Pier DE 8, the afflux is reduced by an average of about 80 mm and afflux at present is in the range of 30 to 180 mm. The afflux is reduced by about 120 mm in the reach upstream of Baba Bhide bridge. The afflux observed at P152 with extended cross sections is 216 mm which is less than previously computed value of 380 mm. The water surface profiles for the discharge of 60,000 ft3/s with and without the Metro Piers are plotted in the Figure 12(a) and Figure 12(b). The water surface elevations and afflux at bridges arid Metro Piers are given in Table 6. The results indicate that there is reduction in the afflux in the study reach because of the extended cross sections obtained from aerial survey. The afflux is lowered by an average of about 60 mm in the reach between Shivaji and Shinde bridge and the afflux at present with extended cross sections is in the range of 0 to 23 mm. in the reach between Shinde bridge and Metro Pier DE 8, the afflux is reduced by an average of about 50 mm and afflux at present is in the range of 23 to 202 mm. The afflux is reduced by about 40 mm in the reach upstream of Baba Bhide bridge. The afflux Page 36 of 44 observed at P152 with extended cross sections is 193 mm which is less than previously computed value of 270 mm.
5.4 Flood inundation mapping Water surface profiles were computed for the discharges of 60,000 ft3/s (Blue line) and 1,00,000 ft3/s (Red line) using the numerical model The inundation depths were computed based on the STRM DEM (30 m grid) downloaded from the USGS website. The inundation map generated is presented in Figure 13 to Figure 24. The inundation map overlaid on Google Map covering the entire study reach and for different stretches are presented in Figure 13 to Figure 18. The inundation map overlaid on SRTM terrain map covering the entire study reach and for different stretches are presented in Figure 19 to Figure
24. Subsequently, the inundation depths were computed based on the DEM generated from the aerial survey data. The aerial survey data were provided for a reach of about 2.5 km covering the reach between S M Joshi bridge and Shivaji bridge (reach where Metro Piers are located along the river flood plain). The inundation area for the flood discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s with and without the Metro Piers are plotted in the Figure 25. The inundation area at bridges and Metro Piers are given in Table 7. The results indicate that the inundation area in the reach between Shivaji and Shinde bridge in the range of 0 to 0.02 m. In the reach between Shinde bridge and Metro Pier DE 8, the inundation area varies from 0.02 m to 10.01 m. The inundation area in the reach between Metro Pier DE 8 and Baba Bhide bridge is in the range of 3.06 m to 10.94 m. The inundation area in the reach upstream of Baba Bhide bridge varies from 10.94 m to 2.66 m. In the reach near the Metro Piers P159, P160 and Z bridge, inundation area is higher and is in the range of 20 m to 30 m.
The inundation area for the flood discharge of 60,000 ft3/s with and without the Metro Piers are plotted in the Figure 26. The inundation area at bridges and Metro Piers are given in Table 8. The results indicate that the inundation area in the reach between Shivaji and Shinde bridge in the range of 0 to 0.01 m. In the reach between Shinde bridge and Metro Pier DE 8, the inundation area varies from 0.01 m to 2.27 m. The inundation area in the reach between Metro Pier DE 8 and Baba Bhide bridge is in the range of 2.27 m to 11.44 m. The inundation area in the reach upstream of Baba Bhide bridge varies from 11.44 m to 0.79 m. In the reach near Bhide bridge and Metro Piers P162 and P163 inundation area is higher and is in the range of about 10 m to 12 m.
The extent of inundation and its accuracy is dependent on the underlying DEM data. Hence, the extent of inundation may vary depending on the underlying DEM.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS The numerical model of river Mutha covering a reach of about 15.0 km from Khadakwasla dam to Sangam near confluence of Page 37 of 44 Mutha river with Mula river was developed using HEC-RAS 5.0.7. Simulations were carried out for the discharges of 60,000 ft3/s and 1,00,000 ft3/s to compute the water surface profiles under existing conditions and also by incorporating the Metro Piers to estimate the afflux.
It was observed that the maximum afflux for the discharge of 1,00,000 ft3/s is about 380 mm in the reach near Sambhaji bridge. This efflux is reduced to 216 mm when the extended cross sections are taken into account. It was observed that the maximum afflux for the discharge of 60,000 ft3ls is about 290 mm in the reach upstream of Sambhaji bridge near pier number P153. This efflux is reduced to 201 mm when the extended cross sections are taken into account.
The inundation depths were computed based on the STRM DEM (30 m grid) downloaded from the USGS website and inundation maps were prepared for the entire study reach. The extent of inundation and its accuracy is dependent on the underlying DEM data. Hence, the extent of inundation may vary depending on the underlying DEM.
Subsequently the inundation depths were computed based on the DEM data collected by aerial survey for limited reach of 2.5 Km. Flood extent was overlaid on Google image.
33. In the light of this, it is urged by him that a detailed study was conducted in respect of all the aspects pertaining to the metro rail construction and riverbed of Mula, Mutha and Mula-Mutha river and that the concerns which have been shown by the Applicants and their Counsel are unfounded, merely based on conjectures, there is no effective scientific study held in respect of their objections. On the other hand, a thorough study has been made by the Respondents in respect of the present project. The relief which is being prayed to direct stopping the construction of the ongoing project and also to shift its alignment, amounts to demolition of the certain part of the said construction. This should not be allowed at all at this stage.
34. From the side of learned Counsel for the Applicants, a detailed argument is made and it was pointed out that shifting is possible, though he did admit that it is nothing but softer word for demolition. Page 38 of 44 We find that there is no prayer made for demolition of any part of the said project which has already been completed and that the prayer no. 1 that the ongoing work be directed to be stopped, has already become infructuous as the work has already been completed.
35. The learned Counsel for the Applicants had carried us through the orders of this Tribunal as well as the portions of the Expert Committee report which according to him contains that there were discrepancies in the data provided by the Respondent No. 6 and yet the same were relied upon by the Committee Members which is highly objectionable. The said data ought to have been verified by them before relying upon the same. There is no cogent reasons given for the same.
36. It is further argued that if the project is allowed to continue that will result in reduction of the width of the river which will lead to high level rise of the flood water, which ultimately will result in submergence of the nearby localities in the heart of the city.
37. After conclusion of the argument in the open Court, the learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted final submission on his behalf on 20.10.2022, stating there-in that CWPRS Report has clearly shown that the earlier assessment with respect to the afflux and submergence, which was 12 millimeters and 23 millimeters, was clearly based on faulty assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 15.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 1054/2019 directed that necessary modification with respect to the construction should be done based on the final reports. It is clear that the original increase of 12 millimeters and 23 millimeters has been found to be gross Page 39 of 44 under estimation in view of the detailed study done by CWPRS which has shown the level of spread to an extent of 55.76 meters. Despite there being a huge difference between 23 millimeters and 55.76 meters (183 feet), the project construction has proceeded on the assumption of 12 millimeters and 23 millimeters increase in water level and no modification in design or location has taken place. Therefore, it is necessary to make suitable modification by shifting the existing structures especially given the fact that the economic cost arising out of shifting of only 1.4 kilometers would be far less than the long-term damage which will arise due to flooding of congested areas of Pune on a repeated basis, especially in view predicted increase in rainfall pattern.
38. Further, it is highlighted that flow from free catchment area is not considered by the Expert Committee nor by CWPRS while computing the rise in flood levels. The CWPRS scientist highlighted that the contribution of discharge from the local catchment downstream of Khadakwasla Dam to Sangam Bridge will only yield about 8500 cusecs, which was noted in the 'Minutes of the Expert Committee's Meeting dated 08.03.2021. However, no study has been conducted by CWPRS nor any other authority has verified the said statement. This statement is also contrary to the findings of an earlier survey conducted by Respondent No. 1/Pune Municipal Corporation, through an organization, 'Primove' which clearly states that the flow from the free catchment area is far greater than the figures of '8500 cusecs' as quoted by the Expert Committee. Page 40 of 44
39. The Tribunal should also consider the present case in light of the untimely rains which happened due to climate change and the water logging that took place in the city of Pune.
40. Based on the above facts, it is argued that the Expert Committee should consider the report of CWPRS; the cross section report within the River stretch of Metro as well as 1 Km upstream and 1 Km downstream must be increased, over and above, the existing cross-sectional area by the maximum reduction in the cross- sectional area caused by the Metro structures so that there is no rise in water levels; and no soil capping be done by any impervious material.
41. We find that the final report of CWPRS has already been filed and has been placed before the Committee in its Meeting held on 08.03.2021 which is evident from the affidavit of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune dated 22.06.2021 with following findings:-
" 1. The maximum afflux (rise in water level) for the 100.000 cusecs and 60,000 cusecs due to introduction of Metro piers have been estimated as 216 mm at Metro pier no. P152 and 241 mm at pier no. DE 1 respectively.
2. This increase in water level results in incremental increase in inundation. Inundation is the spread of the water along both banks (i.e. left bank + right Bank).
3. For the discharge of 100000 cusecs the incremental increase in inundation would be insignificant (0.02 m) in the reach between Shivaji Bridge and Shinde Bridge. In the reach between Shinde Bridge and Metro pier DE 8 incremental increase inundation varies between 0.02 to 10 m. Further from DE 8 to Baba Bhide bridge the incremental inundation varies from 2.6 to 10.94 m. (i.e. about 5m on either bank.)
4. At three locations i.e. P159, P160 and Z Bridge the inundation is 22.2 m 20.6 and 29.8 m respectively. The incremental inundation extent 55.76 m at pier no P167 due to specific topography at this location. There is a low level cross road connecting the river front road and Kelkar road at this location. Water is spreading along Page 41 of 44 this road and hence the higher inundation extent at this particular location was observed.
5. The incremental increase in inundation extent for 60,000 cusecs in the reach between Shivaji Bridge and Shinde Bridge is insignificant (0 to 0.01 m). In the reach between Shinde Bridge and Metro pier DE 8 varies between 0 to 2.27 m. From DE 8 to upstream of Baba Bhide bridge is 2.27 to 11.44 m. At two locations i.e. P162 and P163 is 10 to 11.4 m. (i.e. 5 to 5.6 m on either bank.)
6. Appropriate mitigation measures to be adopted to reduce the inundation extent at critical points.
7. The Irrigation Department has demarcated the redline for a discharge of 100,000 cusecs and blue line for discharge of 60,000 cusecs in year 2011.The expert committee is of the opinion that the Red line and Blue line to be redefined by the competent authority taking into account the recent developments along the river reach.
8. The CWPRS scientist highlighted in their presentation that the contribution of discharge from the local catchment downstream of the Khadakwasla dam to Sangam Bridge will only yield about 8,500 cusecs corresponding to the discharge of 90,000 cusecs. Therefore, in the worst-case scenario the total discharge will not breach 100,000 cusecs. Also, the spillway design capacity of Khadakwasla dam is 97,000 cusecs only.
9. The CWPRS scientist has also pointed out that in the last 56 years the discharge of 60,000 cusecs has only been breached four times and the 100,000 cusecs has not been breached even once, so scenario for breaching the 100,000 cusec discharge would be a rare.
10. It was referred that the Irrigation Department and the Smart City project both have robust flood alarm and evacuation system to avoid loss of life and property. The Smart City Project has already identified the flood prone locations and areas to where people will be moved in case of floods. This has been tested during the floods of 2019.
11. The CWPRS has stated that they have submitted their final report based on the available data. If there would be any further requirement, CWPRS can take up additional studies."
42. From the above final report of the CWPRS, it is apparent that the maximum afflux for 1,00,000 cusecs and 60,000 cusecs due to introduction of Metro piers is estimated by it to be 216 mm at Metro pier no. P152 and 241 mm at Pier no. DE 1 respectively. The Page 42 of 44 Applicant seems not clear about difference in afflux (rise in water level) and submergence (spread of water) and hence has made statement "Despite there being a huge difference between 23 millimeters and 55.76 meters (183 feet), the project construction has proceeded on the assumption of 12 millimeters and 23 millimeters increase in water level and no modification in design or location has taken place." Therefore, it appears that this apprehension of the Applicant is not well-founded.
43. It also finds mentioned in the said report that the appropriate mitigation measures are required to be adopted to reduce inundation extent at critical points and that on account of recent developments along the river reach, Irrigation Department is recommended by the CWPRS to re-define the red line and blue line. The Expert Committee has not found the Project Proponent to be non-compliant and has expressed that there is no impediment in their way to proceed with the work.
44. We find that adequate precaution is being taken by the Project Proponent and the Expert Committee also appears to be quite vigilant in making the recommendation from time to time and the work is proceeding. The recommendations which are made in the Minutes dated 08.03.2021, shall be taken into consideration by the Project Proponent as well as by the Irrigation Department.
45. During the arguments, it was also asked by us as to whether any suggestion other than ordering demolition could be given by the Applicants, but no such suggestion was forthcoming. We find that at this late stage, when the project has already been completed and the Page 43 of 44 study reports which have come on record, appear to have been taken into consideration, all the details with respect to flooding of the area and corrective measures proposed in that regard, are already in the process of being implemented, there remain no ground for us to interfere.
46. We also find that this project is in public interest, as a large number of public would be benefitted by it, therefore, even if some disruption happens to the environment, although the same is being well take care of to the best of the ability of the Respondents, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the project and find that this application has become infructuous, the project already having been admittedly completed.
47. We dispose of this Application accordingly.
48. All connected applications also stand disposed of.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM November 29, 2022 Original Application No. 28/2020 (WZ) I.A. No. 83/2020(WZ), I.A. No. 13/2021(WZ), I.A. No. 14/2021(WZ), I.A. No. 22/2021(WZ) & I.A. No. 65/2021 (WZ) P.kr.
Page 44 of 44