Supreme Court of India
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 996
- Decided
- 6 August 2025
- Disposal
- Directions issued
Holding
The Court held that clay paver blocks may be laid on the main access road, hand‑pulled carts must be phased out, and e‑rickshaws should be introduced on a hire basis to genuine rickshaw pullers and other under‑privileged persons, with a monitoring committee to determine numbers.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined applications concerning the eco‑sensitive hill station of Matheran, Maharashtra, where heavy monsoon rains were causing soil erosion on the main access road and hand‑pulled carts were being used for transport. The petitioners sought permission to lay paver blocks on the Dasturi Naka–Shivaji Maharaj Statue road and to replace hand‑pulled carts with battery‑operated e‑rickshaws, while the respondents opposed these changes. Expert reports from IIT Bombay and NEERI concluded that clay paver blocks are the most suitable material to arrest erosion and recommended specific drainage measures. The Court held that the practice of hand‑pulled carts violates Article 23 and must be phased out, and that e‑rickshaws should be introduced on a hire basis to genuine rickshaw pullers and other under‑privileged persons. Accordingly, the Court permitted laying of clay paver blocks on the main road (with no concrete bedding), barred paver blocks on internal and trekking routes, ordered the cessation of hand‑pulled carts within six months, and directed the State to implement a scheme modelled on Gujarat’s Kevadia programme for e‑rickshaw allocation.
Issues considered
- Whether clay paver blocks should be permitted on the main road between Dasturi Naka and Shivaji Maharaj Statue.
- If permitted, what type of paver blocks should be used.
- Whether battery‑operated e‑rickshaws should be allowed on that road.
- If e‑rickshaws are allowed, how many should be permitted.
- To whom the e‑rickshaws should be allotted.
- Whether the practice of hand‑pulled carts/rickshaws should be continued.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the paver blocks should be permitted to be laid on the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue, which is the main road that connects Matheran from Dasturi Railway Station to the last point inasmuch as most of the habitations are situated on this road; if the answer to issue (i) is in the affirmative, then which type of paver blocks should be
Subjects
MatheranHill stationEco Sensitive Zone (ESZ)IIT BombayExpert bodiesNational Environmental and Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)Pedestrian hill stationPaver blocksType of paver blocksClay paver blocksWestern GhatsDasturi NakaShivaji Maharaj StatueRoad between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj StatueMatheran from Dasturi Railway StationE‑rickshawsSoil erosionKevadia (Sardar Patel Sarovar)Hand cart/rickshaw pullersTrekkersTrekking routesGenuine rickshaw pullersAdivasi womenMatheran Monitoring CommitteeStatue of Unity Area Development and Tourism Governance Authority (SoUADTGA)
Judgment
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1003 : 2025 INSC 996
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v.
Union of India and Others
I.A. No(s). 79569, 79576, 159670 and 159677 of 2019,
I.A. No(s). 14261 and 14262 of 2021, I.A. No(s). 40599, 40624
and 220675 of 2023, I.A. No(s). 111336 and 137276 of 2025
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995)
06 August 2025
[B.R. Gavai,* CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and
N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the paver blocks should be permitted to be laid on the
road between the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue, which is
the main road that connects Matheran from Dasturi Railway Station
to the last point inasmuch as most of the habitations are situated
on this road; if the answer to issue (i) is in the affirmative, then
which type of paver blocks should be permitted to be laid down;
(iii) whether e-rickshaws should be permitted on the said road
between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue or not; (iv) if the
answer to issue (iii) is in the affirmative, then it has to be considered
as to what should be the number of e-rickshaws that should be
permitted to be plyed on the said road; (v) who should be the
persons to whom the said e-rickshaws be allotted to.
Headnotes†
Environment – Various issues w.r.t Matheran, one of the most
popular hill stations in the State of Maharashtra situated in
Raigad District – Whether the paver blocks should be permitted
to be laid on the road between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj
Statue which is the main road connecting Matheran from
Dasturi Railway Station to the last point and the internal roads
are also accessible from the said main road; which type of
paver blocks should be permitted to be laid down; whether
hand pulled carts/rickshaws be replaced with e-rickshaws in
Matheran; to whom the e-rickshaws have to be allotted:
* Author
1004 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Recommendation of the IIT, Bombay and National
Environmental and Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), the
two expert bodies, that the laying of clay paver blocks is the
best solution for arresting the soil erosion is accepted – State
Government is permitted to lay the clay paver blocks on the road
between the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue – While laying
clay paver blocks, no concrete bed shall be laid below the said
clay paver blocks, however, the other measures, as recommended
by the IIT Bombay to increase drainage and prevent waterlogging
such as inclusion of non-woven geotextile layer beneath the sand
bedding, cambering of roads to help reduce erosion etc.to be
implemented – Recommendations given by NEERI shall also be
given effect to – Though the clay paver blocks would be permitted
to be laid on the road between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj
Statue, no paver blocks would be laid on the internal roads
and on the trekking routes – This would inter alia also ensure
that the internal roads and the trekking routes are exclusively
available only for the trekkers and for the persons dependent on
the horses for their livelihood – Further, State of Maharashtra to
forthwith stop the practice of plying hand pulled carts/rickshaws
in the town of Matheran in a phased manner within six months
from today – State Government shall evolve a scheme taking the
scheme applicable in Kevadia (Sardar Patel Sarovar) in the State
of Gujarat to be a model scheme – The State or an authority
constituted on their behalf would purchase the e-rickshaws and
give them on a hire basis on payment of a fixed amount to the
genuine rickshaw pullers or the other underprivileged persons,
including Adivasi women – Matheran Monitoring Committee under
the Chairmanship of the Collector, Raigad, which is constituted
under the ESZ Notification to identify the genuine hand cart/
rickshaw pullers and also determine the number of e-rickshaws
to be permitted. [Paras 30, 49]
Case Law Cited
People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India
and Other [1983] 1 SCR 456 : (1982) 3 SCC 235; Azad Rickshaw
Pullers’ Union and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [1981]
1 SCR 366 : (1980) Supp. SCC 601 – referred to.
List of Acts
Matheran Rules, 1959; Constitution of India.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1005
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
List of Keywords
Matheran; Hill station; Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ); IIT, Bombay;
Expert bodies; National Environmental and Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI); Pedestrian hill station; Paver blocks; Type of paver
blocks; Clay paver blocks; Western Ghats; Dasturi Naka; Shivaji
Maharaj Statue; Road between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj
Statue; Matheran from Dasturi Railway Station; E-rickshaws; Soil
erosion; Kevadia (Sardar Patel Sarovar); Hand cart/rickshaw
pullers; Trekkers; Trekking routes; Genuine rickshaw pullers; Adivasi
women; Matheran Monitoring Committee; Statue of Unity Area
Development and Tourism Governance Authority (SoUADTGA).
Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India
I.A. No(s). 79569, 79576, 159670 and 159677 of 2019, I.A. No(s).
14261 and 14262 of 2021, I.A. No(s). 40599, 40624 and 220675
of 2023, I.A. No(s). 111336 and 137276 of 2025
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
Appearances for Parties
K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Raji
Gururaj, Shreenivas Patil, Veda Singh, Prasad Hegde.
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Ms. Purnima Bhat, Shyam D. Nandan, Ms. Nandana Menon,
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., Syed Mehdi
Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., M/S. Lawyer S
Knit & Co.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, K. M. Nataraj, ASGs, Ms. Garima Prashad,
Sr. A.A.G., Shiv Mangal Sharma, Ajay Agarwal, Aman Pawar, B.k.
Satija, Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.Gs., Colin Gonsalves,
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, P.B. Suresh, Shoeb Alam, Ms. Dr.
Monika Gusain, Mrs. Garima Prashad, Mrs. Meenakshi Arora,
Prashant Bhushan, Ravindra Kumar, Shyam Divan, Gopal
Shankaranarayanan, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Advs., Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Raj Kishor
1006 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Pratibha Singh, Ms. Shalini
Tripathi, Himanshu Gupta, Anupam Bhati, Nakul Chaudhary, Vikram
Patralekh, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi,
Vivek Vishal Gautam, Lalit Mohan, Paul Kumar Kalai, S. Udaya
Kumar Sagar, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Rajat Joseph,
Gopal Prasad, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. Madhu
Moolchandani, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan,
Pranab Samantaray, Manoranjan Paikaray, M/S. Arputham Aruna
And Co, Mrs. Nandini Gore, E. C. Vidya Sagar, M/S. M. V. Kini &
Associates, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Rajeev Singh, Raj Bahadur Yadav,
Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Surya Kant, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar,
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Ms. Mehraj, Vikalp
Gupta, Ms. Urvi Gupta, Prashant Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar
Sinha, Mrs. Vandna Beri, P. Parmeswaran, Shiva Pujan Singh,
Ms. Charu Mathur, Bhavanishankar V.gadnis, A. Venayagam Balan,
Vishwanath Gadnis, Sudarsh Menon, Ramesh Babu M. R., Vikrant
Singh Bais, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya,
Rajiv Mehta, Ejaz Maqbool, Rajesh, M/S. Corporate Law Group,
Abhishek Chaudhary, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan,
Ms. Richa Tiwari, B V Deepak, T. N. Singh, C. L. Sahu, Rajendra
Sahu, Ms. Hema Sahu, Rishabh Sahu, Narinder Kumar Verma,
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Ms. Asha Gopalan
Nair, Rajesh Singh, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla,
Akhileshwar Jha, Chaman Sharma, Supriya, Saurabh Kumar
Solanki, Ravinder Pal Singh, Mahi Pal Singh, Varun Varma, Ishank
Ranjan, Subham Rajhans, Prakhar Shukla, Ms. Manisha Chawla,
Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Jatin Malik, Javed Raza, Mrs. Rekha Pandey,
Raghav Pandey, Ms. Gauri Pandey, Gopal Singh, T. V. George,
Krishnanand Pandeya, Neeraj Shekhar, Rajesh Maurya, Sudhir
Kulshreshtha, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh,
Youkteshwari Prasad, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Mata Prasad Pathak,
Vijay Singh, Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Arvind Kumar Tomar, Soumyadeep
Chatterjee, Mayur Raj, Nikhil Kumar, Tushar Rawal, Ms. Shalini
Satyanarayan, T.v. Surendranath, Ramendra Nath Makhal, Kirtikar
Sukul, Richa Shrivastav, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mohd. Irshad Hanif,
Ms. Rifat Ara Butt, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Rathin Das, Ratan Kumar
Choudhuri, G. Prakash, E. M. S. Anam, Ms. Sushma Suri, Sudhir
Kumar Gupta, A. N. Arora, Irshad Ahmad, Ms. C. K. Sucharita,
Ms. Binu Tamta, Mrs. Bina Gupta, P. V. Yogeswaran, Jitendra
Mohan Sharma, Ms. Malini Poduval, Jai Prakash Pandey,
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Shibashish Misra, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K.
Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Radha Shyam Jena, Ajit Pudussery,
K. V. Vijayakumar, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Divya Roy, Tarun Johri,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1007
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
S. C. Birla, Ram Swarup Sharma, Ashok Mathur, M/S. Parekh &
Co., M/S. K J John And Co, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Surekha
Raman, Shreyash Kumar, Harshit Singh, Yashwant Sanjenbam,
Sidharth Nair, V. Balachandran, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P. R.
Ramasesh, T. Mahipal, Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin,
H. S. Parihar, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Rakesh K.
Sharma, P. N. Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, E. C. Agrawala,
M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Saurabh Rajpal,
Amogh Bansal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Anupam
Raina, Deepak Goel, Vikash Singh, Nishanth Patil, M/S. Venkat
Palwai Law Associates, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra S. Garia, Karan
Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand , Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.k. Nayak,
Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Vikas Bansal, Deeptakirti Verma,
Ms. Usha Nandini V., Avneesh Arputham, Ankit Sharma,
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi,
Vivek Jain, Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rupali, Gaurav
Kumar Bansal, Vishnu Kumar Gupta, Ms. Nandita Bansal,
Ms. Chandrika Upadhaya, Aathrva Upadhaya, Ms. Rani Mishra,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama
Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Venkata Raghuvamsy D.,
Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Adeel Ahmed, Abul Kibriya, Aamir Hussain,
Saalik Islam, Ms. Shreemoyee Bhattacharjee, Rajeev Kumar Dubey,
Ashiwan Mishra, Ms. Aditi Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Somesh
Chandra Jha, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh,
Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar,
Vijay S. Khamkar, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan,
Ms. Richa Tiwari, Tarun Gupta, Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Ripul
Swati Kumari, Krishna Rastogi, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Shubham
Upadhyay, Vivek Gupta, P. S. Sudheer, Sunny Choudhary,
Siddhartha Jha, Dr. Amandeep Gaur, S Ramamoorthy, S Senthil
Elangovan, M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev
Kumar, Shovan Mishra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Shlok Luthra, Ashutosh
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Suman Kukrety, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Suhashini
Sen, Shyam Gopal, Raghav Sharma, Raman Yadav, Dr. N.
Visakamurthy, Naveen Kumar, P. K. Manohar, Vinod Sharma,
Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Rajeev Singh, Ms. Parul Shukla, Saday Mondol,
Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Ms. Debatmaja Ghosh, Abhishek Pandey,
Prashant Kumar Umrao, Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Sanchit
Garga, Ms. Shilpa Singh, B. K. Pal, James P. Thomas,
S. Gowthaman, A. Karthik, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Anurag Tandon,
Aastik Dhingra, Umesh Kumar, Akshay Amritanshu, Hariom
Yaduvanshi, Arjun Yaduvanshi, Ms. S. Harini, Avi Dhankhar,
1008 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Vansmani Tripathi, Ms. Aahana Jaiswal, Ms. Drishti Rawal,
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Tanya Gupta, Sarthak Shrivastava, Mayur
Goyal, Omanakuttan K. K., Ajit Sharma, Avijit Roy, Vishnu Kant,
Irasis Acharya, Ms. Rajnandini, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Sunil Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Neha Singh, Siddharth Sharma,
Raghav Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Gaurang
Bhushan, Baijnath Patel, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Samir Ali Khan,
Pranjal Sharma, Ms. Eksha Sharma, Sachin Patil, Nishant Awana,
Mrs. Rini Badoni Awana, Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Suraj Kundu,
Shubhranshu Padhi, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim
Anvar, Santhosh K, Mrs. Devika A.l., Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka
Mittal, Krishna Ballabh Thakur, Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Aruna Gupta,
Ramesh Allanki, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit
Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shishir
Deshpande, Yusuf, Agam Sharma, Mrs. Pragya Baghel,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Satyalipsu Ray, Deepak Singh, Anuj
Chaudhary, Ms. Priyal Sheth, Raghvendra Kumar, Sravan Kumar
Karanam, P. Venkatraju, Anant Mann, Lakshmeesh S. Kamath,
Mrs. Samriti Ahuja, Ms. Aditi Prakash, Vikas Kumar, Gopal Balwant
Sathe, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Kushagra Sharma, Anuj Agarwal,
Akarsh Khare, Harish Pandey, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Anuj Srinivas
Udupa, Krishna Kant Dubey, Piyush Beriwal, Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Shashwat Parihar, Mukesh K Verma,
Vinayak Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha,
Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Saurabh Rajpal, Himinder Lal, Ms. Shruti
Jose, Durgesh Ramchandra Gupta, Kaushik Choudhury, Aravindh
S., Aman Gautam, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Atul Sharma, Anirudh
Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Shrey Kapoor, Ms. Anne
Mathew, Yash S. Vijay, Sarvan Kumar, Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Ms.
Vartika Maurya, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Ms. Alice Raj, Ms. Sanjana
Grace Thomas, Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, D.p.singh, Ms. Anchal
Kanthed, Abhishek Atrey, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha,
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Rajan K. Chaurasia, Chinmoy Chaitanya,
Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, Dhaval Mehrotra, Binay Kumar Das, Ms.
Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Shivam Saksena, Vikas Bharti, Ms.
Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Subhasish Mohanty, Rahul Jain, Sabarish
Subramanian, Ms. Nina Nariman, Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Arjun
Sharma, Ms. Sarah Ayreen Mir, Ms. Sharanya Ghosh, Samarth
Suri, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Ms. Anindita Mitra, Vishal Sinha,
Naveen Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, M/S. D.S.K. Legal, Ms. Shibani
Ghosh, Rishad A Chowdhury, Ms. Sohini Sanyal, Chandra Bhushan
Prasad, Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Saurabh Rajpal, Amogh Bansal,
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Pankaj Sharma, Yatinder
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1009
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
Choudhary, Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Ms. Vidushi Pandey, Subham
Bahuguna, Eshan Kumar Saxena, Himanshu Kumar, Rajeev Kumar
Dubey, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Ms. Ila Shikhar Sheel,
M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Milind
Kumar, Mohit Paul, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Manika Tripathy,
Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ishika Neogi, Ms. Supreeta
Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Yash S Tiwari,
Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Ashok Gaur,
Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms. Sakshi Singh, Aditya Thayrat, Avishala
Singh, Ms. Adarsh Nain, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Amrish Kumar,
Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.F. Philip, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin
M. Babichen, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Raghav Sharma, Jagdish
Chandra Solanki, Suhasini Sen, Gaurang Bhushan, Dr. Surender
Singh Hooda, Sunil Kumar Verma, Prakash Kumar Singh,
Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Anando Mukherjee,
Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Sujit
Kumar Mishra , Aldanish Rein, Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani,
Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Shantanu Kumar, Ashish Batra, Manan
Verma.
Applicant-in-person.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, CJI
1. The present applications pertain to various issues with regard to one
of the smallest but one of the most popular hill stations in the State
of Maharashtra situated in Raigad District, namely Matheran. It is
situated in the biologically rich Western Ghats, and is now recognized
as an eco-sensitive region. It is also a home to several species of
flora and fauna, including the bonnet macaque, Hanuman langur,
Malabar giant squirrel, barking deer, and various endemic orchids, etc.
2. Matheran has a permanent population of approximately about 4,400
persons, as per the 2011 Census. However, apart from the permanent
population, the region also sees the inflow of large number of tourists
throughout the year and specially during summer. However, lately, the
monsoon tourism has also become quite popular in Matheran, when
the tourists go to enjoy the monsoon of Matheran. The approximate
foot fall of the tourists is around 8 lakhs in a year.
1010 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3. Matheran has been known for its uniqueness, inasmuch as it is
recognized as the only pedestrian hill station.
4. On 21 st November 2000, the Government of Maharashtra
communicated its in-principle approval to the Government of India to
declare Matheran as an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ). On 12th July 2001,
this Court had issued directions in I.A. Nos.669 and 659 in the present
proceedings, that in the interim, Matheran should be recognized as
an ESZ. This Court also expressly restricted all vehicular traffic in
the region, except for an ambulance and a fire engine.
5. A draft notification was published on 6th February 2002, and the Final
Notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest
(MoEF) on 4th February 2003. Para 4(n) of the said notification
restricted the movement of vehicular traffic within the municipal limits
of Matheran, except for an ambulance and fire engine and the use
of a tractor for transportation of solid waste. By a subsequent order
dated 21st July 2003, this Court issued a clarification to its order
of 12th July 2001, to the extent that only one ambulance and one
fire engine should be allowed in addition to one each as standby
in Matheran. In pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, a
Notification dated 16th January 2004 came to be issued.
6. It appears that subsequently taking into consideration the changed
circumstances, the Government of Maharashtra proposed to lay paver
blocks on the road between the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj
Statue, which is approximately 4 kms., and is a lifeline for the town
of Matheran. One of the reasons for laying the paver blocks was to
arrest the soil erosion, inasmuch as it was found that on account of
heavy rains, there was a possibility of the erosion of soil.
7. There is another issue with regard to the permission to operate
battery operated e-rickshaws to replace the practice of hand pulled
carts/rickshaws. The Matheran Municipal Council has, accordingly,
made an application to this Court to stop the practice of hand pulled
carts/rickshaws being plyed on the road.
8. Pursuant to the application made by the Municipal council, the
District Collector, Konkan Division opined that the ESZ notification
of 4th February 2003 should be amended to allow battery operated
e-rickshaws in Matheran. On 25th September 2017, the District
Collector, Raigad, wrote to the Principal Secretary, Department of
Environment, Mumbai justifying the use of e-rickshaws for the benefit
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1011
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
of the population of Matheran. He also recommended an amendment
to the Matheran Rules, 1959 and ESZ Notification.
9. In this background, the matter is pending before last couple of years
on the issue whether the paver blocks should be permitted to be laid
on the road between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue and as
to whether hand pulled carts/rickshaws be replaced with e-rickshaws.
In the meantime, an issue as to whom the e-rickshaws have to be
allotted also arose.
10. On account of various disputes, this Court vide an order dated 24th
July 2024 had requested the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Raigad to conduct an inquiry and to examine the process of allotting
e-rickshaws. In the inquiry certain issues were noticed that the genuine
rickshaw pullers were not being allotted the e-rickshaws. This Court,
therefore, on 20th February 2025 directed the State Government to
file a proposal for revising the process of allotment of e-rickshaws,
considering the disputed position. The State, therefore, proposed a
six stage procedure as under:-
(i) Calling for applications from hand cart pullers through a public
notice,
(ii) Calling for objections,
(iii) Personal hearing to the applicant and objector,
(iv) Consideration of reports from administrative agencies,
(v) Scrutiny of the applications, and
(vi) Shortlisting of genuine hand cart pullers.
11. In pursuance to the aforesaid procedure, the State had conducted
an inquiry and after scrutiny only 13 persons were shortlisted as
actual/genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers. It was also found that 6
persons who were earlier genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers but
who on account of their age could not engage in hand pulling were
willing to undertake the training for plying of e-rickshaws. It was also
found that apart from that there are about 86 daily wages workers
who pull hand cart/rickshaw, although they are not licence holders.
12. We have heard Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel, who
is assisting this Court as an Amicus Curiae. We have also heard
1012 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Ms. Nina Nariman, learned counsel who espouses the cause of
protection of the environment and the persons who are owners/the
persons dependent on horses for their livelihood. On the previous
occasions Ms. Nariman was led by Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior
Counsel. We have also heard Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior
Counsel who appears on behalf of the hand cart/rickshaw pullers
and Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari learned counsel who appears on
behalf of the State of Maharashtra.
13. Ms. Nariman submits that if the paver blocks are to be permitted
only the clay paver blocks should be permitted. It is also submitted
that while laying the clay paver blocks, concrete has been used as
a bed for paver blocks which serves no purpose. She, therefore,
submits that if the clay paver blocks are to be laid, they should be
laid without having a concrete bed. Another issue which is flagged
by Ms. Nariman, learned counsel, is that the paver blocks should
be permitted only from Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue. She
submits that if the paver blocks are also attempted to be laid on the
other internal trekking routes, it would be against the very concept of
Matheran being the only pedestrian hill station. She further submits
that if the paver blocks are to be laid, then a side strip/way should
be kept so that the horses can also ply on the said route.
14. Ms. Nariman, learned counsel, further submits that if e-rickshaws are
to be permitted, then there should be a restriction on the numbers
of e-rickshaws and that e-rickshaws should be allotted only to the
persons who are genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers.
15. On earlier occasions, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel,
had also assisted this Court on behalf of the applicant(s) who are
concerned with the protection of the environment and the owners/
persons dependent on the horses for their livelihood. However,
Mr. Divan at the relevant time during today’s proceedings was on
his legs before some other court. No doubt, even today, Mr. Divan
subsequently joined Ms. Nariman but he permitted her to proceed
with the arguments and chose to assist her.
16. Mr. Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand submits
that the report of the State Government with regard to the genuine
hand cart/rickshaw pullers is incomplete, as the report should take
into consideration the complete data. He submits that he has a list
of genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers, who are dependent upon
rickshaw pulling for their livelihood.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1013
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
17. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Maharashtra, submits that the paver blocks are installed taking into
consideration the report of the experts. He also submits that only the
genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers would be allotted e-rickshaws.
18. Mr. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, has been assisting the
Court throughout the proceedings.
19. Mr. Parameshwar submits that with changing times, the necessary
changes are required to be adopted. He submits that if the clay paver
blocks are laid it will rather than adversely affecting the environment
will, in fact, arrest the soil erosion and will also be beneficial for
protecting the road. He further submits that the rights of the persons
who are hand cart/rickshaw pullers and the right of the persons who
are dependent on horses for their livelihood has to be balanced. He,
however, submits that in the 21st Century, the inhuman practice of
one human being towing other human beings in a hand cart/rickshaw,
has not only to be stopped but should also be castigated. He submits
that if the country is continuing with the practice of one human being
towing other human beings and that too in a hilly terrain, the same
not only attacks the dignity of the individual but also depicts a very
sorry picture. To buttress his submission, he relies on the judgment
of this Court in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights
and Others v. Union of India and Others1.
20. In this background, we are called upon to consider the following issues:
(i) As to whether the paver blocks should be permitted to be
laid on the road between the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj
Statue, which is the main road that connects Matheran from
Dasturi Railway Station to the last point inasmuch as most of
the habitations are situated on this road. The internal roads are
also accessible from the said main road;
(ii) If the answer to issue (i) is in the affirmative, then which type
of paver blocks should be permitted to be laid down;
(iii) As to whether e-rickshaws should be permitted on the said
road between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue or not;
1 (1982) 3 SCC 235
1014 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(iv) If the answer to issue (iii) is in the affirmative, then we would
have to consider as to what should be the number of e-rickshaws
that should be permitted to be plyed on the said road;
(v) The last issue that would, accordingly, be required to be
considered is as to who should be the persons to whom the
said e-rickshaws be allotted to.
21. Insofar as the laying of the paver blocks is concerned, we had
requested the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (for short, “IIT,
Bombay”) to submit a report.
22. In accordance with the directions issued by this Court, the IIT Bombay
submitted a report, as under:
(i) Clay paver blocks were in fact an eco-friendly option that offer
good slip resistance in rain prone areas;
(ii) They have a low water absorption rate, allowing better drainage
to be maintained;
(iii) Their colour and texture enhances visual appearance of the
pathways;
(iv) They minimize waste, can be efficiently produced locally, and
are recyclable and reusable.
23. The report further recommended that sand blasting could be
undertaken prior to every monsoon, to avoid the clay paver blocks
becoming slippery. Other measures that were recommended were
to increase drainage and prevent waterlogging by inclusion of a
non-woven geotextile layer beneath the sand bedding, cambering of
roads to help reduce erosion, construction of contour bunds, inclusion
of lateral drains, and rumble strips for foot support.
24. However, since Mr. Divan, learned Senior Counsel, was not satisfied
with the said report of IIT, Bombay, we thought it fit that the matter be
examined by the National Environmental and Engineering Research
Institute (for short, “NEERI”). Accordingly, vide order dated 19th March
2025, this Court directed the NEERI to examine and submit its report
to this Court on the following issues:
(i) As to whether it is necessary to install the paver blocks in order
to avoid soil erosion;
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1015
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
(ii) As to whether there could be any other alternative than
installation of clay-paver blocks, in order to avoid the soil erosion;
(iii) As to whether, installation of paver blocks would arrest the soil
erosion;
(iv) As to whether the use of clay-paver blocks instead of the
concrete paver blocks would address the issue.
25. NEERI, which is undoubtedly one of the most prominent institutions
in the matters of environmental studies and research submitted its
report with regard to the necessity of laying the paver blocks. It will be
relevant to refer to the following observations of NEERI in its report:
“The trampling effect of horses will reduce soil aggregate
stability which ultimately increases the soil movement with
water and air (…). It was found during the site inspection
that, the mud road paved with laterite near the Charlotte
Lake is weakened mainly by the movement of horse.
(Figure 6). In order to avoid soil erosion on mud road,
a material which can withstand the force of rain and the
trampling effect of horses is required in the Matheran
region. Hence, paving off road with suitable material is
the best method for arresting soil erosion.”
26. It can thus be seen that NEERI also concurred with the report of IIT
Bombay and came to a specific finding that in order to avoid soil
erosion, paving of road with suitable material was the best method
for arresting soil erosion. It is further observed in its report, as under:
“Paver block installation is a solution for arresting soil
erosion of mud road in Matheran. With the installation of
paver blocks, the soil will not be exposed to rain as well as
the trampling effect of horses. Hence, the detachment of
individual soil particles from the soil mass will be reduced.”
27. It can thus be seen that NEERI also observed that with the installation
of the paver blocks, the soil will not be exposed to rain as well as the
trampling effect of horses, hence the detachment of individual soil
particles from the soil mass will be reduced. The NEERI, therefore,
recommended thus:
“Based on the site inspection it is found the clay paver
block installed in 2022 is having enough potential to resist
1016 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the trampling effect of horses. Because, the inspection
team couldn’t see much changes on the surface of clay
paver blocks. It was reported by Dr. Abhay Bambole
that the comprehensive strength of the material was (…)
equivalent to M40 grade concrete paver block. Hence,
clay paver block can be considered as the best solution
for arresting soil erosion on mud roads of Matheran, an
eco-sensitive zone.
In addition to the soil erosion on mud road, a study on soil
erosion of the Matheran region is needed for its prevention
with the objective to (i) Assess the soil erosion potential
of the region; (ii) Identify potential soil erosion sites in the
region and prepare of management plan.”
28. It is thus clear that the NEERI came to a specific finding that clay
paver blocks can be considered as the best solution for arresting
soil erosion on mud roads of Matheran and Eco Sensitive Zones.
29. Time and again, we have observed that this Court cannot sit in an
appeal over the wisdom of experts. The two expert bodies i.e., IIT,
Bombay and NEERI have examined the issue and found that laying
of paver blocks was necessary to arrest the soil erosion. They also
found that the paver blocks is the best solution.
30. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the recommendation of the IIT,
Bombay and NEERI that the laying of clay paver blocks is a best
solution for arresting the soil erosion.
31. The next issue is as to whether the practice of towing by hand the
carts/rickshaws should be permitted or not.
32. As early as in the year 1982, this Court had an occasion to consider
the issue in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights
(supra). It will be appropriate to refer to the following observations:
“12. Article 23 enacts a very important fundamental right
in the following terms:
“23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and
forced labour.—(1) Traffic in human beings
and begar and other similar forms of forced
labour are prohibited and any contravention of
this provision shall be an offence punishable in
accordance with law.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1017
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
………..
But there are certain fundamental rights conferred by the
Constitution which are enforceable against the whole world
and they are to be found inter alia in Articles 17, 23 and
24. ………….. It is Article 23 with which we are concerned
and that article is clearly designed to protect the individual
not only against the State but also against other private
citizens. Article 23 is not limited in its application against the
State but it prohibits “traffic in human being and begar and
other similar forms of forced labour” practised by anyone
else. The sweep of Article 23 is wide and unlimited and
it strikes at “traffic in human beings and begar and
other similar forms of forced labour” wherever they
are found. …………… Now there was one feature of our
national life which was ugly and shameful and which cried
for urgent attention and that was the existence of bonded
or forced labour in large parts of the country. This evil
was the relic of a feudal exploitative society and it was
totally incompatible with the new egalitarian socio-
economic order which “we the people of India” were
determined to build and constituted a gross and most
revolting denial of basic human dignity. …………. This
is the reason why the provision enacted in Article 23 was
included in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. The
prohibition against “traffic in human beings and begar and
other similar forms of forced labour” is clearly intended
to be a general prohibition, total in its effect and all
pervasive in its range and it is enforceable not only
against the State but also against any other person
indulging in any such practice.
13. ……… What are the forms of “forced labour” prohibited
by that article and what kind of labour provided by a
person can be regarded as “forced labour” so as to fall
within this prohibition? …….. This Article strikes at
forced labour in whatever form it may manifest itself,
because it is violative of human dignity and is contrary
to basic human values. The practice of forced labour
is condemned in almost every international instrument
1018 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
dealing with human rights. It is interesting to find that as
far back as 1930 long before the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights came into being, International Labour
Organisation adopted Convention No. 29 laying down that
every member of the International Labour Organisation
which ratifies this convention shall “suppress the use
of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms” and this
prohibition was elaborated in Convention No. 105 adopted
by the International Labour Organisation in 1957. The
words “forced or compulsory labour” in Convention No. 29
had of course a limited meaning but that was so on account
of the restricted definition of these words given in Article 2
of the Convention. Article 4 of the European Convention
of Human Rights and Article 8 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibit forced
or compulsory labour. Article 23 is in the same strain
and it enacts a prohibition against forced labour in
whatever form it may be found. ……. We do not think
it would be right to place on the language of Article 23
an interpretation which would emasculate its beneficent
provisions and defeat the very purpose of enacting them.
We are clearly of the view that Article 23 is intended
to abolish every form of forced labour. …….. Every
form of forced labour, “begar” or otherwise, is within
the inhibition of Article 23 and it makes no difference
whether the person who is forced to give his labour
or service to another is remunerated or not. Even if
remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person
would be hit by this article if it is forced labour, that
is, labour supplied not willingly but as a result of
force or compulsion.
……………
This article strikes at every form of forced labour even
if it has its origin in a contract voluntarily entered into
by the person obligated to provide labour or service.
The reason is that it offends against human dignity
to compel a person to provide labour or service to
another if he does not wish to do so, even though
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1019
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
it be in breach of the contract entered into by him.
There should be no serfdom or involuntary servitude
in a free democratic India which respects the dignity
of the individual and the worth of the human person.
Moreover, in a country like India where there is so much
poverty and unemployment and there is no equality
of bargaining power, a contract of service may appear
on its face voluntary but it may, in reality, be involuntary,
because while entering into the contract, the employee, by
reason of his economically helpless condition, may have
been faced with Hobson’s choice, either to starve or to
submit to the exploitative terms dictated by the powerful
employer. …….”
[emphasis supplied]
33. It can thus be seen that this Court in the said case had an occasion
to consider the effect of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which
prohibits traffic in human beings and forced labour. The Court found
that with the new egalitarian socio-economic order which “we the
people of India” were determined to build; forced labour, in whatever
form, is violative of human dignity and is contrary to the human
order. The Court gave an expanded meaning to Article 23 and held
that Article 23 intended to abolish every form of forced labour. The
Court also found that even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied
by a person would be hit by Article 23, if it is a forced labour i.e.,
labour supplied not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion.
34. The persons towing hand cart/rickshaw in Matheran do so not of
their own choice but since they have no other source of livelihood.
Permitting such an inhuman practice, which hits the concept of
human dignity in a country like India, which is marching towards
becoming a developed country from a developing country, belittles
the constitutional promise of social and economic justice.
35. In a similar situation, this Court in the case of Azad Rickshaw Pullers’
Union and Others v. State of Punjab and Another2 considered
the issue of rehabilitation of manual rickshaw pullers in Punjab. In
his inimitable style, Justice Krishna Iyer observed thus:-
2 (1980) Supp. SCC 601
1020 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“1. No higher duty or more solemn responsibility rests
upon this Court than to uphold every State measure that
translates into living law the preambular promise of social
justice reiterated in Article 38 of the Constitution. We
might have been called upon to examine from this angle
of constitutionalised humanism, the vires of the Punjab
Cycle Rickshaws (Regulation of Licence) Act, 1976 (Punjab
Act 41 of 1976) (“the Act” for short), designed to deliver
the tragic tribe of rickshaw pullers, whose lot is sweat,
toil, blood and tears, from the exploitative clutches of
cycle rickshaw owners by a statutory ban on non-owner
rickshaw drivers.”
36. Though the said case does not pertain to the hand cart/rickshaw
pullers but to the cycle rickshaw pullers, this Court found that even
such a practice of cycle rickshaw pullers was not consistent with the
preambular promise of social justice as contained in Article 38 of the
Constitution of India. The Court further observed thus:
“11. (…) It is a notorious fact that rickshaw pullers have
an occupational hazard and suffer from pulmonary
tuberculosis and so, the State must be deeply concerned
progressively to replace rickshaw pulling with mechanical
propulsion. It would appear that short of scooters there are
mechanised cycle rickshaws which are fairly inexpensive
and which are being experimented with. Such vehicles may
be a boot to the miserable who now torture themselves
to keep body and soul together. After all, the quality of
life of the weakest in society is the true measure of social
justice.”
37. The above words depict the agony which the rickshaw pullers were
undergoing. The Court observed that they suffer from pulmonary
tuberculosis and the State must be deeply concerned progressively
to replace rickshaw pulling with mechanical propulsion. The Court
further observed that such vehicles may be a boot to the miserable
who now torture themselves to keep body and soul together. It also
observed that the quality of life of the weakest in society is the true
measure of the social justice.
38. In light of this observation, it will also be relevant to consider a
recent medical study of the manual rickshaw pullers in India, which
reads thus:
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1021
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
“Overall 61.0% of rickshaw pullers were suffering from
either acute or chronic health problems during their lifetime
and almost half (49.5%) of them had at least one spell of
sickness in the last 15 days. Factors like the consumption
of tobacco and alcohol, and the low socioeconomic status
might be contributing to the health problems. (…) The
chronic illnesses, among study subjects, were found
to be of dental origin (32.8%), vascular origin (31.1%)
including varicose veins, and musculoskeletal problems
(30.1%) including generalized body ache and leg pain.
The possible attributes to these problems might be poor
personal hygiene; a high rate of tobacco consumption;
long hours spent on pedaling rickshaws. In a study from
Odisha, India, musculoskeletal pain problem was found
as the major morbidity (91.7%) among the study subjects
followed by gastrointestinal problems (55.9%), ophthalmic
problem as impaired vision (51.0%). Aches and pains, and
physical weakness constitute 43% of all chronic ailments,
likely to be associated with rickshaw pulling itself, reported
from Bangladesh. (…) The majority of the study subjects
(73.4%) in the present study had BMI within the normal
limits. However, 24.6% of them were underweight and
only 2.0% were overweight. Similar observations have
been reported from Odisha and may be due to the nature
of the job involving intense physical activity for prolonged
durations.”
39. The study shows that 61% of the rickshaw pullers were suffering
from either acute or chronic health problems during their lifetime
and almost half of them had at least one spell of sickness in the
last fifteen days. It was found that long hours spent on pedaling
rickshaws lead to musculoskeletal pain problem amongst 91.7%
of the persons who were subjected to the study. Again, it must be
noted that this was also a report with regard to those plying cycle
rickshaws. If this is the case of the cycle rickshaw pullers, one can
only imagine the plight of the hand cart/rickshaw pullers.
40. In the totality of circumstances, we are at pains to observe that even
after 45 years of the observations made by this Court in the case of
Azad Rickshaw Pullers’ Union (supra), the inhuman practice of a
1022 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
human being towing other human beings is still very much prevalent
in the town of Matheran. The question that we will, therefore, have
to ask ourselves is as to whether we, as a society, are alive to the
constitutional promise of social and economic equality and social
and economic justice.
41. The answer, unfortunately, will have to be in the negative.
42. Continuing such an inhuman practice even after 78 years of the
country getting its freedom and after 75 years of the Constitution
being enacted and promising social and economic justice to its
citizens, in our view, would be betraying the promise given by the
people of India to themselves.
43. We, therefore, find that the practice of permitting hand pulled carts/
rickshaws needs to be stopped forthwith. At the same time, the
question that would arise next is, if we stop this practice what will
happen to those who are dependent on it for their livelihood.
44. The answer to that was given way back in the 1980s in the case
of Azad Rickshaw Pullers’ Union (supra). Forty-five years of
technological development in the country has now led to the
introduction/invention of e-rickshaws, which are not only environment
friendly/cause the least pollution but also prevent the human beings
from adopting practices that hit at an individual’s dignity.
45. We, therefore, find that the State which has also a duty under the
Directive Principles of State Policy to ensure that social and economic
justice is done to the citizen, should form a scheme for rehabilitation
of these hand cart/rickshaw pullers so that they are not deprived of
their livelihood.
46. We may gainfully refer to a scheme, which is implemented in the
town of Kevadia (Sardar Patel Sarovar) in the State of Gujarat.
The State of Gujarat in collaboration with the Statue of Unity Area
Development and Tourism Governance Authority (SoUADTGA) has
purchased a number of e-rickshaws. The said e-rickshaws are given
on a nominal hire basis to the tribal women residing in the vicinity of
the Sardar Patel Sarovar. It has become a famous tourist spot and
hundreds of Adivasi women have not only become self-dependent
but have also flourished on account of this scheme which has been
implemented by the State of Gujarat and SoUADTGA.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1023
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
47. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate that the State of
Maharashtra studies the said scheme and implements the same in
the town of Matheran so that not only the genuine hand cart/rickshaw
pullers are rehabilitated but also the other underprivileged persons
in and around the town of Matheran, including the Adivasi women,
are benefited therefrom.
48. As we understand from the said Scheme, the ownership of the
e-rickshaw is with the SoUADTGA. During the night hours, the
e-rickshaws are charged and, in the morning, the tribal women, on
a payment of a certain amount, are given the e-rickshaw for plying
for the day and whatever is the surplus above the rental amount,
which we understand is a substantial amount, is retained by them
as a reward for their labour.
49. In the light of the aforesaid, we dispose of the present batch of
applications by issuing the following directions:-
(i) The State Government is permitted to lay the clay paver blocks
on the road between the Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue.
While laying clay paver blocks, we direct that no concrete
bed shall be laid below the said clay paver blocks, however,
the other measures, as recommended by the IIT Bombay to
increase drainage and prevent waterlogging such as inclusion
of non-woven geotextile layer beneath the sand bedding,
cambering of roads to help reduce erosion, construction of
contour bunds, inclusion of lateral drains, and rumble strips for
foot support shall be implemented. Needless to also state that
the recommendations given by the NEERI shall also be given
effect to. Needless to state that if any concrete paver blocks are
laid and if any concrete bedding is laid below the paper blocks
the same shall be removed and replaced by the bedding as
recommended by the IIT, Bombay and NEERI. Similarly, if any
concrete paver blocks are already laid, they shall be removed
and replaced by clay paver blocks;
(ii) We clarify that though the clay paver blocks would be permitted
to be laid on the road between Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj
Statue, no paver blocks would be laid on the internal roads and
in no case on the trekking routes. We find that this measure,
apart from providing an accessible road from Dasturi Naka to
Shivaji Maharaj Statue and easy movement of the e-rickshaws
1024 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
would also ensure that the internal roads and the trekking
routes are exclusively available only for the trekkers and for
the persons dependent on the horses for their livelihood. This
will balance the right of the hand cart/rickshaw pullers and the
persons dependent on the horses;
(iii) We direct the State of Maharashtra to forthwith stop the practice
of plying hand pulled carts/rickshaws in the town of Matheran
in a phased manner and in any case within a period of six
months from today;
(iv) The State Government shall evolve a scheme taking the
scheme applicable in Kevadia to be a model scheme. The
State or an authority constituted on their behalf would purchase
the e-rickshaws and give them on a hire basis on payment of
a fixed amount to the genuine rickshaw pullers or the other
underprivileged persons, including Adivasi women. Needless
to state that the genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers would be
given a priority in the matter of allotment of such e-rickshaws
on hire basis.
(v) Insofar as the identification of the genuine hand cart/rickshaw
pullers is concerned, since many flaws have been found by the
learned Principal District Judge, Raigad in his inquiry and since
Mr. Gonsalves, learned senior counsel, is not satisfied with the
modus operandi of the State Government, we direct the Matheran
Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of the Collector,
Raigad, which is constituted under the ESZ Notification to identify
the persons who are genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers. The
number of e-rickshaws to be permitted would also be determined
by the said Committee taking into consideration the ground
realities. The remainder of the e-rickshaws, if available, would be
allotted to the underpriviledged persons residing in and around
Matheran and preferably to Adivasi women who on account of
the same will have an opportunity to earn their livelihood and
become self-dependent, as is done in the case of the scheme
implemented in Kevadia, Gujarat. Needless to state that the
State Government shall also bear the expenses for providing
the necessary training to the genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers
and the other allottees, who are found to be eligible.
(vi) We clarify that the State Government would be at liberty to
implement the aforesaid scheme through Corporate Social
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1025
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others
Responsibility (CSR) Funds or any other mode available to it.
However, we clarify that non-availability of funds would not be
treated as an excuse for not implementing the aforesaid scheme.
We earnestly hope that the State would render all necessary
assistance in stopping such an inhuman practice, which hits at
the basic human dignity, in the right perspective.
(vii) Needless to state that while undertaking aforesaid exercises,
the State Government and relevant authorities shall ensure that
the character of Matheran as a pedestrian hill station, which
is unique to the town of Matheran, shall be maintained to the
extent possible.
50. Before we part with the judgment, we express our deep appreciation
for the valuable assistance provided by Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned
Amicus Curiae ably assisted by Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti,
Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Mr. Raji Gururaj, Mr. Veda Singh, and Mr. Prasad
Hegde, learned counsel. We also express our deep appreciation to
Ms. Nina Nariman, learned counsel, ably assisted by Mr. Shyam
Divan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned
Senior Counsel, ably assisted by Mr. Vivek Vishal Gautam, Mr. Lalit
Mohan and Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai, learned counsel. We also express
our deep appreciation to Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, learned
counsel for the State of Maharashtra, for being responsive to the
suggestions given by the Court.
Result of the case: Directions issued.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Matheran"Sign in to search