Overground Metro 2B corridor: HC seeks DGCA’s stand on claims of AAI overlooking height restrictions

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik on July 26 held a hearing on the PIL filed by Harit Desai, a social worker and Juhu resident. The plea had stated that the no objection certificate (NOC) given by the AAI to the MMRDA for construction of the Metro corridor did not take into consideration the ‘potential threat’ posed by the overground route passing through an airport’s imaginary ‘funnel’ zone, the approach path of a low-flying aircraft.

The plea claimed the NOC was in violation of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015.

On January 18, the bench had directed the civil aviation secretary to act as its special officer and conduct an independent study by looking into the grievances raised by the petitioner. Aviation Secretary Rajiv Bansal subsequently submitted his report.

The report concluded that the height of 16.76 metres above mean sea level (AMSL) granted by the AAI to the MMRDA in May, 2019 is “in accordance with recommendation of the 1978 Joglekar Committee report and the prevailing conditions and duly address the safety aspects for aircraft operations as well as the safety concerns of residents in the vicinity of Juhu Aerodrome”.

Last month, the court had said while the aviation secretary’s report justified the NOC granted by the AAI to the MMRDA for Metro construction, it needed to be assured that such a nod would not pose any risk to fliers or residents of nearby areas.

Desai, through advocates Nishant Thakkar and Jasmin Amalsadvala on July 26, submitted that while the AAI has justified its NOC, the DGCA has not filed an affidavit yet despite the court order.

Advocate Aditya Thakkar, representing the DGCA, said it requires two weeks time to file an affidavit in reply, which the court accepted and asked the authority to submit the same by August 12.

The bench added that such an affidavit by the DGCA shall specifically indicate whether it stands by the AAI’s response and the same clarification is required due to specific submission of the petitioner. Petitioner’s lawyer stated that the AAI’s response seeks to overlook certain statutory perquisites mandated by the Aircraft Act, 1934 in relation to the height restrictions and the DGCA must make its position clear about the same.

The bench continued its interim relief restraining the MMRDA from carrying out any other work, apart from preparatory work at the concerned site till September 15 or until further orders, if not directed otherwise in the meanwhile and posted the next hearing on the PIL to August 22.