PWD, MahaMetro accused of ignoring IRC guidelines in Zero Mile Underpass

 

 

 

Some concerned citizens have approached the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, alleging serious lapses in the planning of the proposed Zero Mile to Manas Square underpass project. The intervenors have strongly objected to the project, claiming that the Public Works Department (PWD) and MahaMetro have failed to submit key mandatory documents required under Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines of 2000, 2010, 2014, and 2019. They argue that essential studies and approvals - such as traffic and accident surveys, feasibility report, Detailed Project Report (DPR), fire safety clearance, drainage management plan, and preliminary survey - are missing, raising concerns about the project’s safety, necessity, and proper use of public funds. The High Court has also directed the intervenors to file affidavit as per Rule 7 of Bombay High court Rules 2010 that they are ready to pay the cost if any of the court finds that their objections are frivolous and unwarranted. The intervenors have alleged that the project involves wasteful use of public money and has been planned without following mandatory technical guidelines. The main objection raised by the intervenors is that PWD and MahaMetro have failed to submit several crucial documents required under the IRC Guidelines of 2000, 2010, 2014, and 2019.

 

According to them, without these documents, the project cannot be considered technically sound or safe for the public. The intervenors have pointed out that no traffic survey has been produced to justify the need for such a large underpass. They claim that a private traffic survey conducted between University Square and Zero Mile shows that only about 8,000 cars use this route on a working day. Based on this data, they have questioned whether such an expensive project is actually necessary. Another major concern raised is the absence of an accident survey. The intervenors argue that accident data is essential to determine whether an underpass is required at this location and to assess safety risks. They have also stated that no feasibility report has been submitted to explain whether the project is viable from a technical and financial point of view. The objections further mention that a Detailed Project Report (DPR), which is a basic requirement for any major infrastructure project, has not been placed on record. In addition, the intervenors allege that the mandatory fire safety No Objection Certificate (Fire NOC) has not been obtained, raising serious safety concerns.

 

Drainage management has also been highlighted as a major issue. The intervenors claim that no drainage management plan has been submitted, even though Nagpur has a history of heavy monsoon rainfall. They pointed out that several existing underpasses in the city, such as those at Manish Nagar, Narendra Nagar, and Wardhaman Nagar, face severe water-logging during the rainy season, putting citizens’ lives at risk. They warned that building new underpasses without solving existing problems could be dangerous. It has also been alleged that the project is being pushed forward without conducting a proper preliminary survey, which is required under IRC guidelines. The intervenors further stated that the underpass passes close to Defence Department land and that permission from defence authorities was obtained only on November 28, 2025, after objections were raised. The project is also said to threaten Nagpur’s historical heritage, especially Freedom Park, which may be affected by the construction.

 

Taking note of these objections, a division bench of Justices Anil Kilore and Raj Wakode directed the PWD to file an affidavit in response within three days, by Friday, January 30. The court also ordered the intervenors to submit an affidavit under Rule 7 of the Bombay High Court Rules, 2010, stating that they are willing to bear costs if the court finds their objections to be frivolous or without merit. Advocate Tushar Mandlekar appeared for the intervenors, while Advocate Deepak Thakre represented the Government. The next hearing will take place after the PWD files its reply.