Mumbai Coastal Road Land Given To Reliance For Development Should Ordinarily Remain Open To Public : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday emphasised that the reclaimed land near Mumbai Coastal Road (South), which has been given to Reliance Industries for landscape development, should ordinarily remain open to public.

With this observation, the Court disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the Expression of Interest (EoI) issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) inviting private agencies for landscaping work on reclaimed lands along the Mumbai Coastal Road.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandrakar heard the matter. It noted that the Court's 2022 order, which permitted development works related to the coastal road project (like landscaping of seaside promenade and road-median), took care of the concerns of the petitioner.

The petitioner apprehended commercialization of the area if a corporate entity (like Reliance) was handed over the works. But notably, in that regard, the 2022 order provided, "The land reclaimed should not be utilised for any residential or commercial development /purposes, presently or at any time in the future".

Be that as it may, the bench led by Justice Maheshwari clarified that the subject area shall ordinarily remain open for the public, except to the extent any development or maintenance work in particular places is required.

"We find that order dated 30 September 2022 takes care of the issue. However, suffice to say that, the Dharmaveer Swarajyarakshak Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Mumbai Coastal Road (South), which is given for development through corporate social responsibility, shall ordinarily remain open for the public, except particular places wherein some extra developments are required and if some maintenance is required in future. The said exercise be also done by the said corporate entity under the instructions of the Corporation and with understanding and settlement. Except to observe the above, we are not inclined to interfere", the Court observed.

During the hearing, the bench asked the petitioner's counsel as to what his exact grievance was. In reply, the counsel said that the work should take place through an open tender, where NGOs, architects, etc. can participate.

"We are interested in public welfare, so public work may go on", remarked Justice Maheshwari. The judge also countered the petitioner's submission that he was before the Court in public interest. "You are against public interest...this is a new project, you should not object. Atleast Bombay people should have some...", the judge said.

The petitioner's counsel then contended that if a corporate is given full charge, the area may be commercialized and public access inhibited. "We understand that ordinarily open place should not be handed to anyone", assured Justice Maheshwari, while indicating that the bench would safeguard the public's right to access.

To recap, the petition was filed by one Jipnesh Narendra Jain, challenging the EoI dated 19.12.2024 issued by the BMC for "Volunteer Agency for Development and long-term Maintenance of landscaping and garden as well as Maintenance of promenade for the Dharmaveer Swarajyarakshak Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Mumbai Coastal Road (South)".

It sought the setting aside of any decision taken or arrangement made consequent to the EoI, including any decision to appoint Reliance Industries Limited/Reliance Foundation as a "Volunteer Agency".

The petitioner further prayed for a declaration that the reclaimed lands and promenade along the Mumbai Coastal Road (South) constitute "public trust property" and "coastal commons" held by the State and BMC in trust for the people, and that they cannot be alienated, licensed, entrusted or otherwise subjected to long-duration control by any private or corporate entity, except in accordance with a transparent statutory framework, development plan reservations and guidelines framed after due public consultation and subject to the prior leave of the Court.

In addition, he sought an order restraining the BMC, Reliance Industries or any other private entity from acting on any agreement pursuant to the EoI, except to the extent of works carried out directly under BMC's control in accordance with Court orders and CRZ clearance. This was to ensure that the place remained free from privatization.

He further prayed for a direction to the State of Maharashtra, BMC, MCZMA and the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to timely frame and place before the Court a policy governing management of the reclaimed coastal lands and promenade. This policy may indicate the extent to which private participation in the works can be permitted and specify safeguards to ensure that the area remains non-commercial, the petitioner said.

The petitioner also sought a direction for interim restrain on any commercial or revenue generating activities on the reclaimed lands. He sought that only the BMC or other public authorities be allowed to carry out the works, at public expense, in strict adherence to CRZ and environmental clearances.

He further pled that in any future process for involvement of external entities in development or maintenance of the reclaimed lands and promenade:

(i) the eligibility criteria, evaluation parameters and tenure shall be reasonable, non-discriminatory and consistent with the objective of preserving these areas as public commons;

(ii) citizen groups, NGOs, professional bodies and smaller, experienced firms shall be entitled to participate; and

(iii) the final decision shall be taken by the elected General Body of the Corporation in an open session after public disclosure of competing proposals.

Case Title: JIPNESH NARENDRA JAIN Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1166/2025