MUMBAI, May 30 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that the Bombay High Court is free to proceed uninfluenced by its earlier observations in the ongoing case against the Rs.299-crore passenger jetty project near the Gateway of India, a heritage monument. Declining to intervene, the apex court directed the high court to hear the matter expeditiously and adjudicate all issues raised, including the legality of piling work into the seabed. The clarification comes two days after the top court declined to stay the contentious project, observing on Tuesday that the jetty served a larger public interest. Instead of passing interim orders, the court urged the High Court to swiftly conclude hearings on pending petitions challenging the development. The latest Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) through advocates Ayush Anand and Prerak Choudhary. The association challenged the High Court's May 7 interim order allowing the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) to continue concrete piling work near the Radio Club area. CHCRA contended that the construction poses a serious risk to the historic seaside heritage wall adjacent to the Gateway of India. The petition questioned whether the High Court had erred in failing to weigh the balance of convenience and the potential for irreversible damage to the site. Earlier, on May 2, the High Court had recorded an assurance from the Advocate General of Maharashtra that the heritage wall would not be disturbed until June 20. The court scheduled the next hearing for June 16. However, piling activity reportedly began the very next day, on May 3, prompting CHCRA to seek an urgent stay, which the High Court declined on May 7. Accusing the authorities of attempting to bypass the court's interim protections, CHCRA approached the Supreme Court, seeking an ex parte interim stay and a direction restraining the state government from initiating any coercive action against petitioners. The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected the challenge without commenting on the merits of the case. It noted that the observations made in a related petition filed earlier by Dr Laura D'Souza would apply equally in this matter. Dr D'Souza's petition-filed through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP-had similarly contested the High Court's refusal to stay the preparatory works, arguing that the project commenced without adequate public consultation and would adversely affect over 2.1 lakh residents in the Colaba area....