New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to submit a report on whether it was necessary to lay paver blocks on roads in Maharashtra’s Matheran to avoid soil erosion.
Automobiles are not allowed in the hill station of Matheran which is located about 83 kilometres away from Mumbai.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing an application over the laying of paver blocks on the mud roads of Matheran.
The applicant’s counsel claimed the attempt was to motorise the hill town of Matheran.
While claiming the exercise was necessary to stop soil erosion, the state’s counsel said the decision to lay clay paver blocks in place of concrete paver blocks was being mulled over.
“We find that it will be appropriate that the NEERI… examines the issue,” the bench said.
Calling for a report within four weeks, the bench asked NEERI to examine certain aspects, including whether it was necessary to install paver blocks to avoid soil erosion aside from finding out an another alternative.
The court directed the state government to make necessary arrangements and provide all facilities to the NEERI experts for conducting the inspection.
The bench observed it previously, on an experimental basis, permitted the use of e-rickshaws in Matheran only for the purpose of rehabilitation of those pulling hand rickshaws.
The apex court also referred to its observation that permitting manual rickshaws in the present age was against human rights.
On January 10 last year, the apex court said e-rickshaws would be provided only to those pulling hand-rickshaws in order to compensate them for their loss of employment.
In April 2024, the court limited the number of e-rickshaws in Matheran to 20 until further orders.
It permitted the e-rickshaw owners, who were earlier handcart pullers, to use the same for transporting tourists and the local population.
In July last year, the top court asked the principal district judge of Raigad to conduct an enquiry through a judicial officer into the dispute over the allotment of e-rickshaws.
Some applicants in the matter alleged in the court that e-rickshaws were not allotted to the original hand-rickshaw pullers but to hotel owners, among others.
Disclaimer: This is a syndicated feed. The article is not edited by the FPJ editorial team.
