Bombay HC raps BMC for ‘farce’ assurance of reconstruction of Bandra (E) skywalk, ‘pathetic’ condition of footpath

The Court observed that the “disregard” shown by the civic body to the past court orders and deviation from its assurances to complete the work within stipulated time, would amount to contempt of court.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor noted that a coordinate bench of HC on April 24, last year had disposed of plea raising concerns over non-availability of a foot-over-bridge (FOB) connecting Bandra (East) railway station towards the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) office end, leading to Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC).

A senior citizen and Bandra-East resident K P Purushothaman Nair, in his petition had claimed that there was only one pavement for commuters travelling from Bandra railway station to BKC which is crowded, which leads to mishaps and accidents.

Nair, a former judicial officer, added that nearly 10 lakh persons visiting commercial and residential areas in Bandra (East) have to walk at a snail’s pace due to the heavily crowded road and also face difficulties in availing public transport.

The BMC had then through an affidavit assured the court that reconstruction of the said skywalk will be carried out with new technology, and fresh tenders will be issued within two months, so that the bridge can be constructed within 15 months from the date of award of contract. The HC had asked the BMC to take steps in an expeditious manner and had also asked it to give immediate attention to Nair’s representation related to the footpath and problems of commuters.

However, on Wednesday, the bench noted, ” To our surprise and dismay, as stated by the petitioner, the work of reconstruction of skywalk has yet not started. If that is so, assurances extended by BMC by filing an affidavit in reply clearly appeared to be farce.”

It added, “Any authority, specially, an instrumentality of state like Municipal Corporation, is bound by statements made before a court of law. Any such deviation from such statement or disregard clearly amounts to contempt of the court.” The bench noted that the BMC authorities also failed to decide Nair’s representation related to ‘pitiable condition’ of footpath.

The bench, perusing photographs of the footpath submitted by Nair observed, “These photographs depict the pathetic condition of the pavement which cannot be used by any human being in a civilised society. The responsibility, it is needless to say, is that of BMC to provide at least a clean and walkable footpath.”

“If you cannot abide by your own statement and situation as it is, how come such things be accepted by us? A year has passed (since last order) and no work done, who can appreciate this? Why cannot we call for contempt?,” CJ Upadhyaya said while questioning the BMC lawyer.

The HC asked the BMC lawyer to immediately apprise the highest authority of BMC about its order and sought to know if the tender was issued for the reconstruction of skywalk and what steps were taken to improve the condition of footpath and posted further hearing to March 27.