The Government of India wrote a letter urging the Maharashtra government to reconsider work at the Aarey Depot site for Metro line 3. The letter states the technical non-feasibility of building a car shed at the Kanjurmarg site. Earlier, the central government cited ownership issues and stalled the shift of the metro car shed from Aarey to Kanjurmarg.

The Bombay High Court asks the state to clarify its stand on the Centre’s letter to reconsider shifting the metro car shed to Kanjurmarg. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni asked both the governments to resolve their conflicts outside the court and focus on serving the public.

On October 11, 2020, the state government had scrapped the construction of a car shed at Aarey Milk Colony, part of which was declared as forest, and said the project would instead come up on land at Kanjurmarg. The proposal to integrate the Metro 6 and Metro 3 lines and take the bogies to Kanjurmarg was made by ex-chief minister Devendra Fadnavis’s government. The MVA Government was simply following the same 2015 recommendations made by the Fadnavis’s Government.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, appearing for the Central government, informed the court on March 17 that constructing a car shed at Kanjurmarg would not be feasible as there were several technical or operational issues, including legal disputes that could arise.

On 12th June 2015, the expert committee appointed by the Fadnavis government to evaluate the suitable sites for the Metro 3 car shed submitted the report stating that "We sincerely believe that Kanjurmarg and Back Bay sites should be evaluated. The Aarey land is certainly not suitable due to its ecological significance."

The total land at Kanjurmarg is 650 hectares. Out of which, 270 ha is disputed despite records being in Government's name. The balance of 370 ha is the Government's land barren. The land records even today stand in the name of the Maharashtra Government. The metro car shed is proposed on an undisputed 100 ha.

The MMRDA’s advocate said that technical issues if any at Kanjurmarg for constructing the metro car shed could be resolved. If there was an expert opinion on the Kanjurmarg land, then the authority would consider the same. However, he requested that the stay be vacated, as the project work had to be completed.

The letter cites, “The project is already inordinately delayed, and it is expected that there will be further delays in the project if uncertainties continue.”

MMRDA Metropolitan Commissioner SVR Srinivas, who holds the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation charge, said it would take over two years to complete the project, excluding the depot. He said, “Some work related to tunneling is to be completed along with the work of stations, electrification, etc.”

This clearly shows that blaming the unresolved issue of the car depot for the delay in completion of Metro line-3 is factually incorrect and seems premeditated.

Relocating the Metro car shed from Aarey forest to Kanjurmarg will conserve forest ecosystems, protect floodplains from concretisation, and pave way for sustainable development amidst the thriving biodiversity. 

Why does the central government play spoilsport in relocating the Metro car shed from Aarey forest to Kanjurmarg?

Documents accessed from RTI reveal that there was a proposal by a builder and developer to redevelop the salt pans at Kanjurmarg for a slum rehabilitation project for which a “Study Committee” was being constituted in June 2019 to give recommendations to the government concerning the proposal submitted by the builder and developer.

MMRDA highlighted the financial benefits of constructing the integrated Metro car shed. They said MMRDA will have to spend an additional Rs2,328 crore on land acquisition and Rs1,600 crore as operational costs, if the integrated car shed at Kanjurmarg stayed by HC. They had also pointed out that a loss of Rs2.5 crore to Rs3 crore per day will be caused to the public exchequer if the ongoing work of the metro car shed at Kanjurmarg was stayed.

It is not the environmental activism causing the loss to the exchequer money but the builders’ and politicians’ nexus that valuates financial gain more than ecological, cultural, and environmental implications.