MUMBAI: The Citizens for Heritage Conservation and Residents’ Association (CHCRA) has challenged the heritage clearance granted by the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) and the BMC to the proposed construction of a large passenger jetty and terminal along the seafront between Radio Club and the Gateway of India.
In an affidavit-in-rejoinder filed on June 20, CHRCA president Subhash Motwani alleged that the heritage NOC issued by the deputy municipal architect on February 7, 2025, was illegal and ex facie ultra vires. He argued that under the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034, specifically Regulation 52(9), the authority to grant such permission rests solely with the municipal commissioner, and only after due consultation with the MHCC.
The project in question proposes a terminal facility measuring approximately 84,000 square feet with a frontage of 250 feet and a height of 15 feet above road level. It includes a massive passenger jetty, extending 650 metres into the sea, with a width of 203 meters and a height of five feet above the road level. The jetty will envelop a sea area of approximately 4,85,000 square feet or 20 times the area occupied by the Gateway of India.
The petitioners argue that allowing such an enormous structure in close proximity to iconic Grade I heritage monuments like the Gateway of India and the old wing of the Taj Mahal Hotel is entirely incompatible with their historic and architectural character and will overwhelm the visual prominence of these heritage sites, obstruct important views, and permanently alter the cultural landscape of the Apollo Bunder waterfront.
The affidavit points out that MHCC has ignored regulations which mandate that new development in heritage precincts must not mar the grandeur, scale, or setting of Grade I structures. It also highlights that the jetty design lacks functional justification, pointing out that the outer rim will host the boarding platforms, but the entire 12-acre sea area enclosed by the structure will have no practical use, effectively wasting public maritime space and contravening principles of sustainable development.
Traffic congestion along P J Ramchandani Marg is another major concern raised in the rejoinder. The road, already under constant strain from regular traffic, has little to no scope for expansion due to its location between the sea and residential buildings. Contrary to MHCC’s claim that congestion has been addressed through the provision of an additional lay-by or drop-off lane, the petitioners argue that no viable road widening is possible, and the additional traffic from a terminal of this size would only worsen an already precarious situation.
CHCRA submitted that the BMC’s heritage clearance was bad in law, illegal and required to be quashed and set aside.