Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Petitions challenge execution of work of construction of Metro Line No. 4 (ML-4) in city of Mumbai. ML-4 is 32.32 km elevated metro corridor from Wadala to Kasarvadavali with 30 stations offering connectivity between Mumbai and Thane.

FACTS :-

4. Brief facts of the case as captured from various pleadings filed by the parties are that in May 2004, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) prepared Mumbai Metro Rail Master Plan for Mumbai Metropolitan city with 09 proposed metro corridors including ML4. The alignment of ML4 in the master plan was alongside Eastern Express Highway. On 10th October 2009, the Central Government declared that the provisions of Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (Metro Act 1978) shall apply to the city of Mumbai. MMRDA Kishor V. Kamble 6/43 WP 2820 of 2018 & 1898 of 2019.doc entered into agreement with Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (DMRC) for modifying the earlier master plan and also for preparation of detailed project report for all metro lines to be constructed in Mumbai. In the meantime, the master plan earlier prepared by MMRDA was forwarded to respondent No.2 - Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). In the Draft Development Plan - 2034 published by MCGM vide notification dated 25 th February 2015, the tentative alignment of ML4 was shown with a caveat that the alignment would be subject to finalization from various departments. However, on 29th April 2016 MMRDA requested MCGM to delete tentative alignment of ML4 shown in the draft development plan as DMRC was working on ML4 alignment. The DMRC submitted final Detailed Project Report of ML4 to MMRDA in May 2016. The property of petitioner-Indo Nippon was affected by alignment of ML4 as per the said DPR. MMRDA approved DPR prepared by DMRC on 30th June 2016.

23. As observed above, the initial tentative alignment of ML4 in the Mumbai Metro Master Plan provided by MMRDA was to proceed alongwith Eastern Express Highway. However subsequently, MMRDA entered into agreement with DMRC, who prepared the detailed project report of all Kishor V. Kamble 19/43 WP 2820 of 2018 & 1898 of 2019.doc metro lines to be constructed in Mumbai. DMRC submitted its detailed project report in respect of ML4 to MMRDA in May 2016 suggesting the revised alignment of ML4. MMRDA has placed on record the revised alignment of ML4 as per DPR prepared by DMRC at Annexure AR-26 and AR-27. It is the case of MMRDA that the revised alignment of ML4 affected the property of petitioner-Indo Nippon. The DPR prepared by DMRC came to be approved by MMRDA on 3rd June 2016. MMRDA thereafter published ML4 alignment including its influence zone on its website. Thus, as early as in May 2016 the alignment of ML4 affected the property of petitioner-Indo Nippon. On 29th December 2016, MMRDA issued public notice in local newspapers informing public at large that it had undertaken implementation of ML4 and scheduled public consultation with various stakeholders and public at large to share the details of the project, to obtain their views and suggestions. Such public consultation was held on 16th January 2017. The Central Government thereafter issued notification dated 23rd March 2017 approving alignment of ML4 by adding the same under Schedule-2 of the Metro Act 1978.

30. In Bramhapal (supra) the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 11 as under:-

11. Ordinarily, the word "may" is not a word of compulsion. It is an enabling word and it only confers capacity, power or authority and implies discretion. It is used in a statute to indicate that something may be done which prior to it could not be done.

31. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that General Manager for every Metro Railway Project must be appointed by Central Government under Section 3 of the Metro Act 1978. Petitioners have not countered the assertion of MMRDA that Kishor V. Kamble 24/43 WP 2820 of 2018 & 1898 of 2019.doc for several other Metro Lines, the Central Government has chosen not to appoint a General Manager, even though it has stakes in those projects. The Central Government in the present case has included alignment of ML-4 in Schedule to the Metro Railways Act 1978, but has left the implementing agency to be appointed by the State Government, which has appointed MMRDA as the implementing agency for ML4. Government of India has also issued a clarification vide letter dated 17th April 2018 that it can be inferred that competent authority of MMRDA can be considered as the competent authority for implementation of ML4. Thus, far from objecting to MMRDA acting as the implementing agency for ML4, the Central Government has in fact approved its authority to implement the project. We must also bear in mind the fact that what are filed by petitioners are not petitions in public interest. In their Writ Petitions, Petitioners are essentially aggrieved by alignment of ML4 to the extent it affects their properties. Petitioners did not question authority of MMRDA to implement ML4 project in the year 2016 when MMRDA was appointed as the agency for execution of the project. The objections are raised by Petitioners in 2018 and 2019 only after noticing that their properties are being affected by alignment of ML4. Therefore, the scope and ambit of present petitions cannot be enlarged beyond their principal grievance to issues such Kishor V. Kamble 25/43 WP 2820 of 2018 & 1898 of 2019.doc as authority of MMRDA to implement the project. We therefore reject the objection raised by petitioners in this regard.

Kishor V. Kamble 34/43 WP 2820 of 2018 & 1898 of 2019.doc

42. On 8th May 2018, the State Government sanctioned Development Plan-2034 of MCGM as well as the DCPR 2034. In the Development Plan so sanctioned, the ML4 alignment was not incorporated therein. MMRDA therefore requested MCGM to modify / amend the Development Plan by including alignment of ML4 therein. However, on 4th March 2020, MCGM took a stand that under Regulation 55 of DCPR 2034, any modification introduced in Metro/Mono corridors and sanctioned by Government stands automatically amended on the Development Plan. MCGM therefore called upon MMRDA to forward alignments in respect of Metro / Mono corridors to take cognizance thereof in the Development Plan alongwith copy of sanction order of the State Government. By another letter dated 4th March 2020, MCGM, referring to the provisions of Regulation 55 of DCPR 2034, brought to the notice of MMRDA that alignment available on MMRDA's website differed from the alignment shown in the sanctioned DP. MMRDA was therefore requested to send the alignment of Metro / Mono corridors together with its influence zones to MCGM along with copy of sanction order of the State Government. By its letter dated 14th June 2021, MCGM repeated the request. MMRDA by its letter dated 21st June 2021 forwarded the modified alignment as per master of DP sheets and notification to MCGM which included alignment of ML4. By letter dated Kishor V. Kamble 35/43 WP 2820 of 2018 & 1898 of 2019.doc 29th February 2021, MCGM forwarded speaking order dated 10th November 2021 of the Municipal Commissioner reflecting alignment with its influence zones in DP 2034 inter alia in respect of ML4. MMRDA has accordingly placed on record relevant extract of final DP reflecting the alignment of ML4.