Mumbai: ‘Who allowed seawall at Aksa beach?’

Construction work being carried out on the sea wall

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has admitted an application filed by environmentalists challenging the seawall being built by the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) at Aksa beach in Malad, due to its adverse impact. The NGT's western bench, after hearing the advocate for the applicants, B N Kumar (director of NatConnect Foundation), and Zoru Bhathena (a Mumbai-based activist), stated in its order on Monday that there is a prima facie case showing a substantial question relating to the adverse impact on the environment.

Kumar and Bhathena brought the matter to the Tribunal's attention, highlighting that the seawall violates CRZ1 norms as it is being constructed in the middle of the beach. They also noted that it contravenes the clearance granted by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), which specifically prohibited any construction on the beach but allowed "beautification" only on the landward side of the beach and CRZ2.

According to a press release by the NGO NatConnect Foundation, MMB's counsel, Saket Mone, who previously claimed that the Board had obtained all necessary clearances, filed an affidavit with the NGT as per the Tribunal's order, referring to the CRZ clearance dated March 4, 2019.

During the Monday hearing, the applicants' advocate, Ronita Bhattacharya, pointed out that the CRZ clearance cited by MMB was conditional. The MCZMA explicitly stated that no solid construction should be undertaken in the intertidal area.

Advocate Bhattacharya also drew the bench's attention to photographic evidence showing that the seawall was constructed in the middle of the beach, near the sea waves, and argued that the structure would have an adverse impact on the environment.

The bench, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh as the judicial member and Dr Vijay Kulkarni as the expert member, issued notices to the MCZMA, the state environment department, and the union ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MOEFCC), instructing them to file their responses within four weeks.

The application highlighted that NatConnect had previously written to the MOEFCC, bringing the anti-nature seawall to their attention. The Ministry requested the MCZMA to investigate the matter and provide a report, which is still awaited.

While MMB claimed in its submission to the MCZMA that the seawall was necessary for preventing erosion on the beach, the Authority noted that seawalls and bunds are widely considered to be detrimental to the preservation of beaches and protection against flooding.

The Authority also expressed concerns that the beach may erode due to the solid construction on the beach, as mentioned in the MCZMA minutes, according to Bhattacharya.

However, MMB proceeded with the construction of a 600-metre by 4-metre wall, effectively dividing the picturesque beach into two, despite these concerns. Bhattacharya pleaded for the revocation of all clearances granted to the board.

The counsel previously informed the bench that the construction of the seawall also violates a ban imposed by an NGT special bench in a case concerning a beach in Puducherry.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 4.

Sept 4
Date of next hearing