Supreme Court Seeks Report From NEERI On Laying Down Of Paver Blocks In Matheran; Assures That It Won't Allow 'Motorization' Of The Hill Town

While dealing with the issue of laying down of paver blocks in Matheran, Maharashtra, the Supreme Court today called for a report from the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) on aspects including the necessity of installing paver blocks, the preferred nature of paver blocks (clay/concrete), etc.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, being of the view that NEERI is the most prestigious body in the field of environmental sciences. It further directed State of Maharashtra to make necessary arrangements for inspection by NEERI experts and to provide necessary assistance to enable them to submit a report.

The report to be filed by NEERI shall deal with the following aspects: 

(i) As to whether it is necessary to install paver blocks in order to avoid soil erosion?

(ii) As to whether installation of paver blocks would arrest soil erosion?

(iii) As to whether use of clay paver blocks instead of concrete paver blocks would address the situation?

(iv) As to whether there could be any other alternative than installation of clay paver blocks in order to avoid soil erosion?

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (appearing for representative associations of horsemen/ghodawala sangathans) argued that laying down of paver blocks is not the issue - it is the idea to motorize Matheran, which was intended to be a town where people could travel only on foot or by horses. In response, Justice Gavai assured that the Court would take care of it so that except plying of a few number of e-rickshaws, no motorization of the quaint hill town takes place.

Subsequently, the senior counsel informed that Matheran gets flooded in the monsoon season and paver blocks can be slippery for people as well as horses. He submitted, "What's happening is, there is concretization taking place...to lay the paver block, they (authorities) are actually laying coat after coat...". He further beseeched the Court to have NEERI report on the very necessity of laying down paver blocks in the town.

Maharashtra government, on its part, tried to justify the laying of paver blocks by saying that failure to do so may result in soil erosion. It also informed that in consultation with IIT, the state is considering installation of clay paver blocks instead of concrete.

Accordingly, the bench passed its order calling for the NEERI report.

To recap briefly, the Court had previously expressed a view that permitting plying of manual rickshaws in this age would be against human rights. As such, on experimental basis, use of e-rickshaws was permitted for rehabilitation of handcart pullers. The Court had clarified that e-rickshaws could only be provided to present-day handcart pullers, in order to compensate them for their loss of employment and restricted the number of e-rickshaws in the city to 20.

In July last year, a dispute arose as to who were allotted the e-rickshaws/licenses. While the state claimed that the allotment was made in favor of original handcart pullers, the applicants (associations of horsemen) alleged that allotments were made to hotel owners, etc. Considering, the Court asked the Principal District Judge, Raigad to call an enquiry and submit a report.

In November, Amicus K Parmeswar, relying on the report of the Principal District Judge, claimed that the state government made a "mockery" of the Court's order. He alleged that out of 20 licenses, only 4 were given to handcart pullers while the rest went to journalists, Nagar Palika employees, hotel managers, etc. Taking note, the Court expressed displeasure with the state authorities and adjourned the matter for them to respond to the Principal District Judge's report.

In February, 2025, the Court granted time to the state to furnish a proposal for revisiting the process of allotment of 20 e-rickshaw licenses to original handcart pullers in Matheran.

Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995