The Supreme Court of India has sought a detailed report from the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) regarding the installation of paver blocks in Matheran, Maharashtra. This directive comes as part of an ongoing discussion on whether such installations are essential to prevent soil erosion and how they might impact the environment and local community.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih emphasized that NEERI, being a highly reputed body in environmental sciences, is best suited to assess the situation. The court also instructed the Maharashtra government to facilitate NEERI’s inspection and provide necessary assistance to ensure a comprehensive report is submitted.
Key Aspects of the Report Sought by the Supreme Court:
Necessity of paver blocks: Whether their installation is required to prevent soil erosion.
Effectiveness in soil erosion control: Can paver blocks successfully prevent soil erosion?
Material preference: Whether clay paver blocks are a better alternative to concrete ones.
Alternative solutions: Exploring other possible measures to curb soil erosion without installing paver blocks.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the horsemen associations, clarified that the primary concern is not the installation of paver blocks but the potential motorization of Matheran. The town is historically known for being a pedestrian and horse-ridden zone, and there are fears that allowing paver blocks might pave the way for increased vehicle usage.
Justice Gavai reassured that the Court would ensure Matheran remains non-motorized. He stated:
“Except for a limited number of e-rickshaws, no motorization of this quaint hill town will be allowed.”
Advocate Divan also pointed out that Matheran experiences heavy monsoons, which could make paver blocks slippery for both people and horses. He argued:
“What's happening is, there is concretization taking place. To lay the paver blocks, authorities are adding layer after layer of material, which could lead to more problems.”
The Maharashtra government defended the installation, stating that without paver blocks, soil erosion could worsen. The state also mentioned that it is working with IIT to explore the use of clay paver blocks as a sustainable alternative.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Criticizes DGFT for Delayed DEPB License Cancellation
Background on E-Rickshaw Policy
Earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled against manual rickshaws, citing human rights concerns. As a solution, it allowed the limited use of e-rickshaws—strictly for rehabilitating former handcart pullers. Only 20 e-rickshaw licenses were granted, ensuring minimal environmental impact.
However, disputes arose regarding the distribution of these licenses. In July last year, horsemen associations alleged that instead of original handcart pullers, the licenses were given to hotel owners, municipal employees, and journalists. The Supreme Court then tasked the Principal District Judge of Raigad with conducting an inquiry.
In November, Amicus Curiae K. Parmeswar presented findings that out of 20 licenses, only 4 were given to handcart pullers, while the rest went to individuals outside the intended beneficiaries. Expressing dissatisfaction, the Court demanded an explanation from the Maharashtra government.
In February 2025, the Court granted additional time for the state to revise the e-rickshaw allotment process and ensure that the licenses are distributed fairly.
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
