Events & Personalities
Realigning the line
A Bombay High Court bench of Justices A. S. Oka and Riyaz Chagla on July 25, 2018 has appointed the Veermata Jijabai Institute of Technology (VJTI, previously Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute) to ascertain if tunnelling work for the Metro 3 line and its operation when complete could cause any structural damage to the Hormusji Bomanji Wadia and Zarthoshti Anjuman Atash Behrams. The Institute has been mandated to submit its report to the court in 10 days. VJTI will also assess the structural impact 
of the entrance to the proposed Kalbadevi Metro station on Jagannath Shankarsett Road that is reportedly only five meters away from the boundary wall of the Wadia Atash Behram complex, and on the water levels and quality in the Atash Behram wells. A stay granted in May 2018 on the blasting work near the Atash Behrams was to continue till the subsequent hearing on August 6.
As the issue pertains to protecting the religious sentiments of the community, the bench has also directed the state and central governments to clarify by August 4 their stance on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, according to The Times of India (July 26). That Article guarantees free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by senior lawyer Berjis Desai, along with structural engineer Jamshed Sukhadwalla, religious scholar Ervad (Dr) Rooyintan Peer and two trustees of the Shah Varzaavand Trust against the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL). The petitioners had moved the BHC to prevent any drilling work for the line, and a complete realignment of the route (see "Objecting to the Metro,” Events and Personalities, Parsiana, June 7, 2018). Subsequently, MMRCL had agreed to a realignment of 3.5 m, but the petitioners were worried that even with this shift, a part of the tunnel would continue to go under the area where worshippers performed the kusti ritual at the fire temple. Devotees are expected to recite the kusti prayers prior to entering the atash behram premises.
"Will the modified alignment (adversely) affect the structures?” the bench asked counsel S. G. Aney representing MMRCL. Observing that there was only oral assurance from the body that the heritage structures would be unaffected, the bench noted that it was important to consult an independent agency. Senior counsel Navroz Seervai argued on behalf of the petitioners that in MMRCL’s own reports, the structural health of the Atash Behrams was noted as "generally unsatisfactory.” He emphasized the complex nature of consecration of an atash behram. No mention, however, was made of the alleged "earth lines and circuits underneath a consecrated fire temple,” which was one of the reasons the petitioners had for moving the court. Seervai was supported by advocate Zerick Dastur and senior counsel Shyam Mehta.
What would happen if something went wrong during the drilling for the line, the bench questioned Aney. "They (the petitioners) do not know that something will go wrong, either,” said Aney. "At the point where we are, any alteration of the route is not possible,” he reiterated.
"This is like Gunfight at the O. K. Corral… to see who blinks first,” quipped Seervai, referring to the Hollywood movie. "We are not trying to be obstructionists, but when it comes to the Metro, it appears that they have an attitude of ‘it cannot be done,’” claimed Seervai. The Anjuman Atash Behram trustees represented by counsel Fredun De Vitre said that pending a report on the structural safety, work cannot be permitted to go on, as this would vitiate the need for a report, he argued.
The MMRCL argument that "work cannot be stopped now,” was countered by Seervai who noted that work had indeed stopped when part of Jer Mahal, a building close to the Atash Behram, had given way, allegedly due to vibrations from the drilling.
A detailed note on the case was received from Homiar Vakil, partner in the legal firm of Mulla and Mulla and Cragie Blunt and Caroe, who provided instruction to the lawyers appearing for the Atash Behram trustees.
of the entrance to the proposed Kalbadevi Metro station on Jagannath Shankarsett Road that is reportedly only five meters away from the boundary wall of the Wadia Atash Behram complex, and on the water levels and quality in the Atash Behram wells. A stay granted in May 2018 on the blasting work near the Atash Behrams was to continue till the subsequent hearing on August 6.As the issue pertains to protecting the religious sentiments of the community, the bench has also directed the state and central governments to clarify by August 4 their stance on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, according to The Times of India (July 26). That Article guarantees free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by senior lawyer Berjis Desai, along with structural engineer Jamshed Sukhadwalla, religious scholar Ervad (Dr) Rooyintan Peer and two trustees of the Shah Varzaavand Trust against the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL). The petitioners had moved the BHC to prevent any drilling work for the line, and a complete realignment of the route (see "Objecting to the Metro,” Events and Personalities, Parsiana, June 7, 2018). Subsequently, MMRCL had agreed to a realignment of 3.5 m, but the petitioners were worried that even with this shift, a part of the tunnel would continue to go under the area where worshippers performed the kusti ritual at the fire temple. Devotees are expected to recite the kusti prayers prior to entering the atash behram premises.
"Will the modified alignment (adversely) affect the structures?” the bench asked counsel S. G. Aney representing MMRCL. Observing that there was only oral assurance from the body that the heritage structures would be unaffected, the bench noted that it was important to consult an independent agency. Senior counsel Navroz Seervai argued on behalf of the petitioners that in MMRCL’s own reports, the structural health of the Atash Behrams was noted as "generally unsatisfactory.” He emphasized the complex nature of consecration of an atash behram. No mention, however, was made of the alleged "earth lines and circuits underneath a consecrated fire temple,” which was one of the reasons the petitioners had for moving the court. Seervai was supported by advocate Zerick Dastur and senior counsel Shyam Mehta.
What would happen if something went wrong during the drilling for the line, the bench questioned Aney. "They (the petitioners) do not know that something will go wrong, either,” said Aney. "At the point where we are, any alteration of the route is not possible,” he reiterated.
"This is like Gunfight at the O. K. Corral… to see who blinks first,” quipped Seervai, referring to the Hollywood movie. "We are not trying to be obstructionists, but when it comes to the Metro, it appears that they have an attitude of ‘it cannot be done,’” claimed Seervai. The Anjuman Atash Behram trustees represented by counsel Fredun De Vitre said that pending a report on the structural safety, work cannot be permitted to go on, as this would vitiate the need for a report, he argued.
The MMRCL argument that "work cannot be stopped now,” was countered by Seervai who noted that work had indeed stopped when part of Jer Mahal, a building close to the Atash Behram, had given way, allegedly due to vibrations from the drilling.
A detailed note on the case was received from Homiar Vakil, partner in the legal firm of Mulla and Mulla and Cragie Blunt and Caroe, who provided instruction to the lawyers appearing for the Atash Behram trustees.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive