Dealing with issues arising out of a pilot e-rickshaw project in the pedestrianized hill town of Matheran (Maharashtra), the Supreme Court recently expressed displeasure with the state authorities for granting licenses to people other than the original e-rickshaw pullers. handcarts (as suggested in previous orders to compensate them for their loss).

A bank of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was thinking about practice filed by three representative horsemen’s associations or ghodawala sangathans, requesting the amendment of a previous order which enabled the implementation of eco-friendly e-rickshaws in Matheran on an experimental basis to check their feasibility to replace the hand-drawn rickshaws plying in the area.

To recap, the Court had earlier clarified that e-rickshaws could only be provided to existing handcart pullers to compensate them for job loss and restricted the number of e-rickshaws in the city to 20. In April this year, it asked an affidavit from the state of Maharashtra as to who were previous handcart pullers and who were licensed to use the rickshaws electronics because as well as the details of people who have purchased e-rickshaws.

In July, a dispute arose over who was allotted the e-rickshaws/licenses. While the State contended that the allotment was made in favor of the original handcart pullers, the plaintiffs (horsemen’s associations) contended that allotments were made to hotel owners, etc. In view of this, the Court asked the Principal District Judge, Raigad, to initiate an inquiry and submit a report.

During the last hearing, Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (acting as Amicus Curiae), relying on the report of the Principal Sector Judge, argued that the state government had made a “mockery” of the Court’s order. “Out of 20 licences, journalists, Nagar Palika employees, hotel managers, licenses given…out of 20, only 4 were given to handcart pullers…a draw is being made…wife of a member Nagar Palika gets 2. ..she draws 2 draws from the same draw”, he said.

When one of the councilors mentioned the role of police personnel, the bench asked: “What does politics have to do with this? How do the police get involved?”

Justice Viswanathan asked from Parmeswar who was operating the e-rickshaws at present for licensing purposes. The Senior Counsel replied that the managers etc. which have been granted licenses work the same.

When he further mentioned that a Corporator’s wife had received 2 licenses and was operating them, a disgruntled Judge Gavai commented: “why was a Corporator’s wife given 2 licenses?”. The Judge even expressed his inclination to summon the Collector to Court on the next date.

Finally, the Maharashtra counsel sought and was granted a week’s time to respond to the Senior District Judge’s report. However, before parting, Judge Gavai suddenly delivered to him: “don’t mock (our order)”.

Background

The interlocutory application was filed in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case, an omnibus forest protection matter in which the trial court issued the oldest continuing mandate in the field of environmental litigation. Since 1996, when the court’s jurisdiction was invoked in a plea to protect the Nilgiris forest, numerous orders have been passed on a wide range of issues such as deforestation, logging, logging, compensatory afforestation and endangered species of disappearance.

In 2002, a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was established to monitor the implementation of court orders and draw attention to incidents of non-compliance.

On May 12, 2022, the Court permissive Maharashtra State to implement its proposal to introduce some eco-friendly e-rickshaws in the Matheran Eco-Sensitive Zone on an experimental basis to check its feasibility to replace the hand-drawn rickshaws plying in the area.

Subsequently, applications were submitted by three representative horsemen’s associations, or ghodawala sangathans, seeking to amend the permit to operate eco-friendly e-rickshaws in the Matheran ESZ. The two main issues raised as a result were: authorization of e-rickshaws in Matheran; and (ii) laying of paving blocks etc. on the roads of Matheran.

In February 2023, the Court stayed the laying of concrete paver blocks in the Matheran ESZ until the Monitoring Committee (constituted by virtue of a 2003 referral by the Ministry of Environment and Forests) took a call on the matter and submitted a report. In November, the state was allowed to continue the e-rickshaw pilot project in Matheran until further orders.

In January 2024, the Court clear that e-rickshaws, if allowed, in Matheran city would be only for the current handcart pullers so as to compensate them due to job loss.

In April, the Court allowed the number of e-rickshaws in Matheran to be limited to 20 and allowed e-rickshaw owners, who were earlier handcart pullers, to use them for transporting tourists and local people.

Case Title: In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Registered Petition (civil) no. 202 of 1995