Land reclamation for Shivaji Memorial: HC raps Centre for failing to file affidavit 7 months after order

Chinoy told the court that in the draft notification of the central government, there was an addition of a clause in which the state government was restricted from conducting public hearing. However, the final notification said that the state can dispense the public hearing. But there is no execution of such public hearing.

In February, an order was passed by the court that said: “While filing a reply, the Union of India shall specifically state whether any order in writing was passed by it under clause D of paragraph 4 (ii) (j) of CRZ notification dispensing with requirement of public hearing. If such order is already passed by the central government, a copy of the application made by the state government as well as the copy of the order shall be placed on record along with the affidavit.”

Chief Justice Naresh H Patil and Justice G S Kulkarni said the team of the central government was at the “height of (being) irresponsible” for not filing an affidavit for seven months and said it is liable for contempt of court for not complying with the order. Chief Justice Patil asked for the joint secretary, ministry of law and justice, branch secretariat, Mumbai, who was present in court. He came in court on Thursday afternoon.

Chief Justice Patil said the central government’s legal team should be reconstituted. S R Rajguru, the counsel for the central government apologised. Justice Kulkarni said: “Your apology is not going to suffice, you’re already in contempt.”

Senior Counsel V A Thorat, along with lawyer Prachi Tatake, for the state government, told the court that the state government is considering a proposal to recover the cost of the Shivaji Memorial from visitors but a final decision is yet to be taken.

Chinoy also told the court that the work has started for reclaiming the sea for allied commercial purposes. If such spot is reclaimed, it cannot be given back. So, the work should be stopped immediately.

Chief Justice Patil asked as to why the state government did not opt for holding a public hearing? Thorat told the court that public hearing was required only in those cases where a project affects human habitation. In this case, the population is not affected. So, there is no need to conduct a public hearing. Thorat also told the court that the project was not conceptualised overnight. It had been discussed for years.

The government has appointed contractors and received several approvals from authorities, including the CRZ, this year. Therefore, the petition need not have come at a belated stage.
Senior Counsel Mihir Desai, counsel for a group of professors, architects, historians and architects opposing the memorial, said that over 16,000 fishermen were getting affected, as the area around the proposed statue has been declared a no-fishing zone.